Phonetically write "BOUTIQUE"
Phonetically write "BOUTIQUE"
Bu - TEEK
(The French like to make words look more difficult than they really are!)
(The French like to make words look more difficult than they really are!)
I don't think I've ever actually said this word outloud, but I think I'd say Bo-TEEK.
I like both Uriel and Elaine's renditions. The first is a dictionary-type phonetic spelling; the second, is the International Phonetic Script which is difficult to render on the internet without special software (just like the Russian alphabet), unfortunately.
<<the second, is the International Phonetic Script which is difficult to render on the internet without special software (just like the Russian alphabet), unfortunately.>>
No, I think she's using X-SAMPA. (The transcription of "boutique" is identical in X-SAMPA and IPA.)
No, I think she's using X-SAMPA. (The transcription of "boutique" is identical in X-SAMPA and IPA.)
D'accord avec Elaine & Lazar. An /bu:ti:k/, qui n'est pas rare d'entendre réalisé [bUu:tIi:k], est un calque phonique de Fr /butik/, soit Fr [butik] ou [butik@].
As Greg wrote, [bUu:tIi:k] looks like a more accurate realization of "boutique" in English. The lengthening affects the quality of these vowels.
/bu:ti:k/ is International Phonetic Script spelling. It is the system used by Roger Lass in his "Phonology - An Introduction To Basic Concepts", a book which I think has been around longer than SAMPA.
<</bu:ti:k/ is International Phonetic Script spelling. It is the system used by Roger Lass in his "Phonology - An Introduction To Basic Concepts", a book which I think has been around longer than SAMPA.>>
Its age is irrelevant. I have never seen it referred to on any linguistic website, and to my knowledge it's never been used on antimoon or langcafe before. It also has no wikipedia page - if you type in "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Script", you'll get nothing.
The only phonetic alphabets that I have ever seen used are IPA, SAMPA, and (on antimoon) ASCII.
/bu:ti:k/ IS the SAMPA spelling, and I'm about 99% sure that Elaine was using SAMPA.
Its age is irrelevant. I have never seen it referred to on any linguistic website, and to my knowledge it's never been used on antimoon or langcafe before. It also has no wikipedia page - if you type in "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Script", you'll get nothing.
The only phonetic alphabets that I have ever seen used are IPA, SAMPA, and (on antimoon) ASCII.
/bu:ti:k/ IS the SAMPA spelling, and I'm about 99% sure that Elaine was using SAMPA.
Now that I reflect, you must have been referring to IPA when you said "International Phonetic Script". In which case, *yes*, /bu:ti:k/ happens to be the IPA spelling, but nonetheless it *is* also the SAMPA spelling.
<<Now that I reflect, you must have been referring to IPA when you said "International Phonetic Script". In which case, *yes*, /bu:ti:k/ happens to be the IPA spelling, but nonetheless it *is* also the SAMPA spelling.>>
I would actually say that /bu:ti:k/ is not an accurate IPA representation of "boutique" but seems to be following the antimoon transcription system, which has /i:/ for XSAMPA /i/, /i/ for XSAMPA /I/, /u:/ for XSAMPA /u/. In IPA it would be something akin to /butik/ for most dialects of English. A narrow transcription of it in my speech is [bM"t_hik_}].
I would actually say that /bu:ti:k/ is not an accurate IPA representation of "boutique" but seems to be following the antimoon transcription system, which has /i:/ for XSAMPA /i/, /i/ for XSAMPA /I/, /u:/ for XSAMPA /u/. In IPA it would be something akin to /butik/ for most dialects of English. A narrow transcription of it in my speech is [bM"t_hik_}].
Salut Kirk : sais-tu que le site de Yann a migré sur www.langcafe.net ?