Talk:edzino
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Razorflame
dz is pronounced as an affricate (how else?), hence it cannot be heterosyllabic --Ivan Štambuk 15:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Esperanto does not have a dz affricate... -- Prince Kassad 15:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- That is your guess, or a citeable claim? --Ivan Štambuk 15:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- 1993, Pierre Janton, Humphrey Tonkin, Esperanto: language, literature, and community, pages 47 and 48. The phonology table shows the ts, tʃ and a dʒ affricates (indicated by the letters c, ĉ and ĝ respectively) but no dz affricate. -- Prince Kassad 15:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- That is the table of phonemic inventory which cannot capture such marginal conditions (neither in eo, nor in any language). AFAICS, that book doesn't deal at all with that issue. Syllabification rules take into account actual phonetic output (among other things). According to WP (also citable from other sources), this <dz> in edz/o is pronounced as [e.dzo]. It also better captures morphological decomposition into root + suffix -ino. It would be quite bizarre that in otherwise melliferous eo one ought to pronounce clusters such as [ed.zo]. --Ivan Štambuk 15:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Quoting Wikipedia, haha. I'd trust anyone I encounter on the side street more...
If I recall correctly, Esperanto was criticized exactly for containing these consonant clusters which make it quite hard for speakers of Korean or Japanese to learn the language. So it's not that surprising that it has [ed.zo]. -- Prince Kassad 16:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)- AFAICS, Wikipedia article on w:Esperanto phonology is of superb quality and based on the most respectable sources. Plena Analiza Gramatiko de Esperanto apparently states that that shouldn't be syllabified as [ed.zo], but as [e.dzo] --Ivan Štambuk 16:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- apparently indicates you have no knowledge on the subject, in which case you should not be discussing it. I don't try to correct your Serbo-Croatian entries either. -- Prince Kassad 16:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently means I don't have that book from which that statement is cited (hence I cannot really verify it). Esperanto is a dumb language that can be learned in a day, so there's no problem in discussing it amateurishly. --Ivan Štambuk 16:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- apparently indicates you have no knowledge on the subject, in which case you should not be discussing it. I don't try to correct your Serbo-Croatian entries either. -- Prince Kassad 16:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- AFAICS, Wikipedia article on w:Esperanto phonology is of superb quality and based on the most respectable sources. Plena Analiza Gramatiko de Esperanto apparently states that that shouldn't be syllabified as [ed.zo], but as [e.dzo] --Ivan Štambuk 16:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Quoting Wikipedia, haha. I'd trust anyone I encounter on the side street more...
- That is the table of phonemic inventory which cannot capture such marginal conditions (neither in eo, nor in any language). AFAICS, that book doesn't deal at all with that issue. Syllabification rules take into account actual phonetic output (among other things). According to WP (also citable from other sources), this <dz> in edz/o is pronounced as [e.dzo]. It also better captures morphological decomposition into root + suffix -ino. It would be quite bizarre that in otherwise melliferous eo one ought to pronounce clusters such as [ed.zo]. --Ivan Štambuk 15:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- 1993, Pierre Janton, Humphrey Tonkin, Esperanto: language, literature, and community, pages 47 and 48. The phonology table shows the ts, tʃ and a dʒ affricates (indicated by the letters c, ĉ and ĝ respectively) but no dz affricate. -- Prince Kassad 15:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- That is your guess, or a citeable claim? --Ivan Štambuk 15:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
(unindenting) There is no dz affricate in Esperanto. Please see User talk:Kwamikagami for the reason why it is e.dzi.no instead of ed.zi.no. Thanks and cheers, Razorflame 19:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)