Talk:кандзи
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Cinemantique
@Cinemantique I think it should be closer to [kɐnʲdʲˈzʲi] or [ˈkanʲdʲzʲɪ] (if stressed on the first syllable) but not sure, which rules are applicable here. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- The rule is for надзор and others, see Avanesov's §14.9 (page 187). Probably, it occurs between morphemes only.--Cinemantique (talk) 02:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- OK. Etymologically, "дзи" is one morpheme, unlike надзор (над + зор). Should that be considered as well? As for the assimilation, should that be added to words like Джакарта (for "дж")? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- We need to check it all. My textbook says that таджик sounds like [tɐd͡ʐˈʐɨk]. So morphemes don't matter.
- {{ru-IPA|от за́висти}} shows [ɐˈd‿zavʲɪsʲtʲɪ] now, it should be [ɐd͡z‿ˈzavʲɪsʲtʲɪ].
- {{ru-IPA|дщерь}} gives [tɕːerʲ]. Should be [t͡ɕɕːerʲ]?--Cinemantique (talk) 11:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. Would you add new test cases for the above? To make things even more complicated, should кандзи be [kɐnʲd͡zʲˈzʲi]? (my original question was more about the consecutive palatalisation, not assimilations). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, they're both palatal ([dʲzʲ]), but we cannot show a tie for four symbols. @Benwing2?--Cinemantique (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. Would you add new test cases for the above? To make things even more complicated, should кандзи be [kɐnʲd͡zʲˈzʲi]? (my original question was more about the consecutive palatalisation, not assimilations). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- OK. Etymologically, "дзи" is one morpheme, unlike надзор (над + зор). Should that be considered as well? As for the assimilation, should that be added to words like Джакарта (for "дж")? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)