What's the lowered “single quote” lookalike marking in phonetic symbols
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
I understand that the normal "single quote" marking indicates stress, but what about the lowered one?
phonetics ipa
edited Mar 4 at 2:14
tchrist♦
108k28290459
asked Mar 4 at 1:14
Andy
1162
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
I understand that the normal "single quote" marking indicates stress, but what about the lowered one?
phonetics ipa
edited Mar 4 at 2:14
tchrist♦
108k28290459
asked Mar 4 at 1:14
Andy
1162
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
I understand that the normal "single quote" marking indicates stress, but what about the lowered one?
phonetics ipa
edited Mar 4 at 2:14
tchrist♦
108k28290459
asked Mar 4 at 1:14
Andy
1162
I understand that the normal "single quote" marking indicates stress, but what about the lowered one?
phonetics ipa
phonetics ipa
edited Mar 4 at 2:14
tchrist♦
108k28290459
asked Mar 4 at 1:14
Andy
1162
edited Mar 4 at 2:14
tchrist♦
108k28290459
asked Mar 4 at 1:14
Andy
1162
edited Mar 4 at 2:14
tchrist♦
108k28290459
edited Mar 4 at 2:14
tchrist♦
108k28290459
edited Mar 4 at 2:14
tchrist♦
108k28290459
108k28290459
asked Mar 4 at 1:14
Andy
1162
asked Mar 4 at 1:14
Andy
1162
asked Mar 4 at 1:14
Andy
1162
1162
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
The low stress mark ˌ is simply used before a syllable to indicate a lesser degree of stress than the high stress mark ˈ.
Different theories or descriptions of English phonology recognize different "levels" of stress and different names for them. In Balogné Bérces Katalin's "The Pronunciation of English", syllables like the "gran" in "pomegranate" are described as having "tertiary stress".
According to Balogné Bérces, a syllable with secondary stress always occurs earlier in a word than the syllable with primary stress (for example, the first syllable in the word "derivation" has secondary stress, and the third syllable has the primary stress). There are a few other conditions that Balogné Bérces identifies as necessary for secondary stress that I won't get into here, but that you can see if you look at the linked document. Syllables in other positions with unreduced vowels are described as having "tertiary stress".
Although they can be distinguished in theory, many dictionaries transcribe "secondary stress" and "tertiary stress" the same way (or they use ˌ before some syllables with "tertiary stress", and no stress sign before others). Actually, the use of any stress marker at all is probably redundant for this word, because the use of the symbol "a" for the vowel indicates that it is not reduced. As far as I know, there is no accent of English where |ˈpäm(ə)ˌgranət| really contrasts with |ˈpäm(ə)granət|.
There is a relevant post on John Wells's phonetic blog, "irritating hamburgers", where he argues that it is unnecessary to use any kind of stress marker in the transcription of the second-to-last syllable of the word "irritating", although he notes that such transcriptions are in fact used by some sources:
native speakers tend to perceive the penultimate syllable [of irritating], teɪt, as being more strongly ‘stressed’ than the final syllable ɪŋ. But what they want to call ‘stress’ is arguably no more than a way of saying that the vowel is one of the strong ones.
Actual rhythmic beats following the main word stress accent are all pretty optional, which is why the British tradition is not to show any secondary stress in words like this: ˈɪrɪteɪtɪŋ, not *ˈɪrɪˌteɪtɪŋ. The alternative tradition, usually followed in the States and (for example) Japan, is to recognize a secondary stress on the penultimate, írritàting.
answered Mar 4 at 1:29
sumelic
44.5k7105206
Secondary stress can explain why you get two completely different /t/ allophones in [ˈiɹəˌtʰeɾɨŋ].
– tchrist♦
Mar 4 at 2:04
And I imagine pomegranate is /ˈpɒməˌgrænɨt/ phonemically, so often just [ˈpʰɑməˌgrænət̚] in many and probably most American dialects (stress notwithstanding).
– tchrist♦
Mar 4 at 2:11
@tchrist: KarlG's answer to Why isn't the T in “relative” flapped? indicates that the rules for t-voicing/flapping/tapping are fairly complicated. Wells's preferred method of dealing with the rule is to say that the voiced flap/tap only occurs before weak vowels. That formulation takes care of "irritating" without reference to stress. The transcription /ˈpɒməˌgrænɨt/ looks more diaphonemic than phonemic to me: I certainly don't have a /ɒ/ phoneme, and I doubt I have a /ɨ/ phoneme.
– sumelic
Mar 4 at 2:15
What's a weak vowel? A reduced one? As for the other, you have to write your phonemics in a way that works everywhere; otherwise they aren't phonemic, eh? You’ll note that I didn’t use those two symbols in the phonetics — which are in my own dialect, of course: I don’t say them there any more than you do. I figure eventually the pomegranate-loving poms will wake up and appreciate my diaphonemes for having been inclusive of their accents. :)
– tchrist♦
Mar 4 at 2:24
@tchrist: Well, different accents of English are typically analyzed as having different underlying inventories of vowel phonemes. Some people do postulate an even deeper underlying level of the phonology, but my impression is that this is rather controversial. Transcriptions that take multiple dialects into account are useful tools, but I was just saying that whether they are properly described as "phonemic" is questionable. But then again, the concept of the phoneme is itself questionable, so it's not really a big deal.
– sumelic
Mar 4 at 2:28
|
show 1 more comment
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
The low stress mark ˌ is simply used before a syllable to indicate a lesser degree of stress than the high stress mark ˈ.
Different theories or descriptions of English phonology recognize different "levels" of stress and different names for them. In Balogné Bérces Katalin's "The Pronunciation of English", syllables like the "gran" in "pomegranate" are described as having "tertiary stress".
According to Balogné Bérces, a syllable with secondary stress always occurs earlier in a word than the syllable with primary stress (for example, the first syllable in the word "derivation" has secondary stress, and the third syllable has the primary stress). There are a few other conditions that Balogné Bérces identifies as necessary for secondary stress that I won't get into here, but that you can see if you look at the linked document. Syllables in other positions with unreduced vowels are described as having "tertiary stress".
Although they can be distinguished in theory, many dictionaries transcribe "secondary stress" and "tertiary stress" the same way (or they use ˌ before some syllables with "tertiary stress", and no stress sign before others). Actually, the use of any stress marker at all is probably redundant for this word, because the use of the symbol "a" for the vowel indicates that it is not reduced. As far as I know, there is no accent of English where |ˈpäm(ə)ˌgranət| really contrasts with |ˈpäm(ə)granət|.
There is a relevant post on John Wells's phonetic blog, "irritating hamburgers", where he argues that it is unnecessary to use any kind of stress marker in the transcription of the second-to-last syllable of the word "irritating", although he notes that such transcriptions are in fact used by some sources:
native speakers tend to perceive the penultimate syllable [of irritating], teɪt, as being more strongly ‘stressed’ than the final syllable ɪŋ. But what they want to call ‘stress’ is arguably no more than a way of saying that the vowel is one of the strong ones.
Actual rhythmic beats following the main word stress accent are all pretty optional, which is why the British tradition is not to show any secondary stress in words like this: ˈɪrɪteɪtɪŋ, not *ˈɪrɪˌteɪtɪŋ. The alternative tradition, usually followed in the States and (for example) Japan, is to recognize a secondary stress on the penultimate, írritàting.
answered Mar 4 at 1:29
sumelic
44.5k7105206
Secondary stress can explain why you get two completely different /t/ allophones in [ˈiɹəˌtʰeɾɨŋ].
– tchrist♦
Mar 4 at 2:04
And I imagine pomegranate is /ˈpɒməˌgrænɨt/ phonemically, so often just [ˈpʰɑməˌgrænət̚] in many and probably most American dialects (stress notwithstanding).
– tchrist♦
Mar 4 at 2:11
@tchrist: KarlG's answer to Why isn't the T in “relative” flapped? indicates that the rules for t-voicing/flapping/tapping are fairly complicated. Wells's preferred method of dealing with the rule is to say that the voiced flap/tap only occurs before weak vowels. That formulation takes care of "irritating" without reference to stress. The transcription /ˈpɒməˌgrænɨt/ looks more diaphonemic than phonemic to me: I certainly don't have a /ɒ/ phoneme, and I doubt I have a /ɨ/ phoneme.
– sumelic
Mar 4 at 2:15
What's a weak vowel? A reduced one? As for the other, you have to write your phonemics in a way that works everywhere; otherwise they aren't phonemic, eh? You’ll note that I didn’t use those two symbols in the phonetics — which are in my own dialect, of course: I don’t say them there any more than you do. I figure eventually the pomegranate-loving poms will wake up and appreciate my diaphonemes for having been inclusive of their accents. :)
– tchrist♦
Mar 4 at 2:24
@tchrist: Well, different accents of English are typically analyzed as having different underlying inventories of vowel phonemes. Some people do postulate an even deeper underlying level of the phonology, but my impression is that this is rather controversial. Transcriptions that take multiple dialects into account are useful tools, but I was just saying that whether they are properly described as "phonemic" is questionable. But then again, the concept of the phoneme is itself questionable, so it's not really a big deal.
– sumelic
Mar 4 at 2:28
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
4
down vote
The low stress mark ˌ is simply used before a syllable to indicate a lesser degree of stress than the high stress mark ˈ.
Different theories or descriptions of English phonology recognize different "levels" of stress and different names for them. In Balogné Bérces Katalin's "The Pronunciation of English", syllables like the "gran" in "pomegranate" are described as having "tertiary stress".
According to Balogné Bérces, a syllable with secondary stress always occurs earlier in a word than the syllable with primary stress (for example, the first syllable in the word "derivation" has secondary stress, and the third syllable has the primary stress). There are a few other conditions that Balogné Bérces identifies as necessary for secondary stress that I won't get into here, but that you can see if you look at the linked document. Syllables in other positions with unreduced vowels are described as having "tertiary stress".
Although they can be distinguished in theory, many dictionaries transcribe "secondary stress" and "tertiary stress" the same way (or they use ˌ before some syllables with "tertiary stress", and no stress sign before others). Actually, the use of any stress marker at all is probably redundant for this word, because the use of the symbol "a" for the vowel indicates that it is not reduced. As far as I know, there is no accent of English where |ˈpäm(ə)ˌgranət| really contrasts with |ˈpäm(ə)granət|.
There is a relevant post on John Wells's phonetic blog, "irritating hamburgers", where he argues that it is unnecessary to use any kind of stress marker in the transcription of the second-to-last syllable of the word "irritating", although he notes that such transcriptions are in fact used by some sources:
native speakers tend to perceive the penultimate syllable [of irritating], teɪt, as being more strongly ‘stressed’ than the final syllable ɪŋ. But what they want to call ‘stress’ is arguably no more than a way of saying that the vowel is one of the strong ones.
Actual rhythmic beats following the main word stress accent are all pretty optional, which is why the British tradition is not to show any secondary stress in words like this: ˈɪrɪteɪtɪŋ, not *ˈɪrɪˌteɪtɪŋ. The alternative tradition, usually followed in the States and (for example) Japan, is to recognize a secondary stress on the penultimate, írritàting.
answered Mar 4 at 1:29
sumelic
44.5k7105206
Secondary stress can explain why you get two completely different /t/ allophones in [ˈiɹəˌtʰeɾɨŋ].
– tchrist♦
Mar 4 at 2:04
And I imagine pomegranate is /ˈpɒməˌgrænɨt/ phonemically, so often just [ˈpʰɑməˌgrænət̚] in many and probably most American dialects (stress notwithstanding).
– tchrist♦
Mar 4 at 2:11
@tchrist: KarlG's answer to Why isn't the T in “relative” flapped? indicates that the rules for t-voicing/flapping/tapping are fairly complicated. Wells's preferred method of dealing with the rule is to say that the voiced flap/tap only occurs before weak vowels. That formulation takes care of "irritating" without reference to stress. The transcription /ˈpɒməˌgrænɨt/ looks more diaphonemic than phonemic to me: I certainly don't have a /ɒ/ phoneme, and I doubt I have a /ɨ/ phoneme.
– sumelic
Mar 4 at 2:15
What's a weak vowel? A reduced one? As for the other, you have to write your phonemics in a way that works everywhere; otherwise they aren't phonemic, eh? You’ll note that I didn’t use those two symbols in the phonetics — which are in my own dialect, of course: I don’t say them there any more than you do. I figure eventually the pomegranate-loving poms will wake up and appreciate my diaphonemes for having been inclusive of their accents. :)
– tchrist♦
Mar 4 at 2:24
@tchrist: Well, different accents of English are typically analyzed as having different underlying inventories of vowel phonemes. Some people do postulate an even deeper underlying level of the phonology, but my impression is that this is rather controversial. Transcriptions that take multiple dialects into account are useful tools, but I was just saying that whether they are properly described as "phonemic" is questionable. But then again, the concept of the phoneme is itself questionable, so it's not really a big deal.
– sumelic
Mar 4 at 2:28
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
The low stress mark ˌ is simply used before a syllable to indicate a lesser degree of stress than the high stress mark ˈ.
Different theories or descriptions of English phonology recognize different "levels" of stress and different names for them. In Balogné Bérces Katalin's "The Pronunciation of English", syllables like the "gran" in "pomegranate" are described as having "tertiary stress".
According to Balogné Bérces, a syllable with secondary stress always occurs earlier in a word than the syllable with primary stress (for example, the first syllable in the word "derivation" has secondary stress, and the third syllable has the primary stress). There are a few other conditions that Balogné Bérces identifies as necessary for secondary stress that I won't get into here, but that you can see if you look at the linked document. Syllables in other positions with unreduced vowels are described as having "tertiary stress".
Although they can be distinguished in theory, many dictionaries transcribe "secondary stress" and "tertiary stress" the same way (or they use ˌ before some syllables with "tertiary stress", and no stress sign before others). Actually, the use of any stress marker at all is probably redundant for this word, because the use of the symbol "a" for the vowel indicates that it is not reduced. As far as I know, there is no accent of English where |ˈpäm(ə)ˌgranət| really contrasts with |ˈpäm(ə)granət|.
There is a relevant post on John Wells's phonetic blog, "irritating hamburgers", where he argues that it is unnecessary to use any kind of stress marker in the transcription of the second-to-last syllable of the word "irritating", although he notes that such transcriptions are in fact used by some sources:
native speakers tend to perceive the penultimate syllable [of irritating], teɪt, as being more strongly ‘stressed’ than the final syllable ɪŋ. But what they want to call ‘stress’ is arguably no more than a way of saying that the vowel is one of the strong ones.
Actual rhythmic beats following the main word stress accent are all pretty optional, which is why the British tradition is not to show any secondary stress in words like this: ˈɪrɪteɪtɪŋ, not *ˈɪrɪˌteɪtɪŋ. The alternative tradition, usually followed in the States and (for example) Japan, is to recognize a secondary stress on the penultimate, írritàting.
answered Mar 4 at 1:29
sumelic
44.5k7105206
The low stress mark ˌ is simply used before a syllable to indicate a lesser degree of stress than the high stress mark ˈ.
Different theories or descriptions of English phonology recognize different "levels" of stress and different names for them. In Balogné Bérces Katalin's "The Pronunciation of English", syllables like the "gran" in "pomegranate" are described as having "tertiary stress".
According to Balogné Bérces, a syllable with secondary stress always occurs earlier in a word than the syllable with primary stress (for example, the first syllable in the word "derivation" has secondary stress, and the third syllable has the primary stress). There are a few other conditions that Balogné Bérces identifies as necessary for secondary stress that I won't get into here, but that you can see if you look at the linked document. Syllables in other positions with unreduced vowels are described as having "tertiary stress".
Although they can be distinguished in theory, many dictionaries transcribe "secondary stress" and "tertiary stress" the same way (or they use ˌ before some syllables with "tertiary stress", and no stress sign before others). Actually, the use of any stress marker at all is probably redundant for this word, because the use of the symbol "a" for the vowel indicates that it is not reduced. As far as I know, there is no accent of English where |ˈpäm(ə)ˌgranət| really contrasts with |ˈpäm(ə)granət|.
There is a relevant post on John Wells's phonetic blog, "irritating hamburgers", where he argues that it is unnecessary to use any kind of stress marker in the transcription of the second-to-last syllable of the word "irritating", although he notes that such transcriptions are in fact used by some sources:
native speakers tend to perceive the penultimate syllable [of irritating], teɪt, as being more strongly ‘stressed’ than the final syllable ɪŋ. But what they want to call ‘stress’ is arguably no more than a way of saying that the vowel is one of the strong ones.
Actual rhythmic beats following the main word stress accent are all pretty optional, which is why the British tradition is not to show any secondary stress in words like this: ˈɪrɪteɪtɪŋ, not *ˈɪrɪˌteɪtɪŋ. The alternative tradition, usually followed in the States and (for example) Japan, is to recognize a secondary stress on the penultimate, írritàting.
answered Mar 4 at 1:29
sumelic
44.5k7105206
edited Mar 4 at 2:32
answered Mar 4 at 1:29
sumelic
44.5k7105206
answered Mar 4 at 1:29
sumelic
44.5k7105206
answered Mar 4 at 1:29
sumelic
44.5k7105206
44.5k7105206
Secondary stress can explain why you get two completely different /t/ allophones in [ˈiɹəˌtʰeɾɨŋ].
– tchrist♦
Mar 4 at 2:04
And I imagine pomegranate is /ˈpɒməˌgrænɨt/ phonemically, so often just [ˈpʰɑməˌgrænət̚] in many and probably most American dialects (stress notwithstanding).
– tchrist♦
Mar 4 at 2:11
@tchrist: KarlG's answer to Why isn't the T in “relative” flapped? indicates that the rules for t-voicing/flapping/tapping are fairly complicated. Wells's preferred method of dealing with the rule is to say that the voiced flap/tap only occurs before weak vowels. That formulation takes care of "irritating" without reference to stress. The transcription /ˈpɒməˌgrænɨt/ looks more diaphonemic than phonemic to me: I certainly don't have a /ɒ/ phoneme, and I doubt I have a /ɨ/ phoneme.
– sumelic
Mar 4 at 2:15
What's a weak vowel? A reduced one? As for the other, you have to write your phonemics in a way that works everywhere; otherwise they aren't phonemic, eh? You’ll note that I didn’t use those two symbols in the phonetics — which are in my own dialect, of course: I don’t say them there any more than you do. I figure eventually the pomegranate-loving poms will wake up and appreciate my diaphonemes for having been inclusive of their accents. :)
– tchrist♦
Mar 4 at 2:24
@tchrist: Well, different accents of English are typically analyzed as having different underlying inventories of vowel phonemes. Some people do postulate an even deeper underlying level of the phonology, but my impression is that this is rather controversial. Transcriptions that take multiple dialects into account are useful tools, but I was just saying that whether they are properly described as "phonemic" is questionable. But then again, the concept of the phoneme is itself questionable, so it's not really a big deal.
– sumelic
Mar 4 at 2:28
|
show 1 more comment
Secondary stress can explain why you get two completely different /t/ allophones in [ˈiɹəˌtʰeɾɨŋ].
– tchrist♦
Mar 4 at 2:04
And I imagine pomegranate is /ˈpɒməˌgrænɨt/ phonemically, so often just [ˈpʰɑməˌgrænət̚] in many and probably most American dialects (stress notwithstanding).
– tchrist♦
Mar 4 at 2:11
@tchrist: KarlG's answer to Why isn't the T in “relative” flapped? indicates that the rules for t-voicing/flapping/tapping are fairly complicated. Wells's preferred method of dealing with the rule is to say that the voiced flap/tap only occurs before weak vowels. That formulation takes care of "irritating" without reference to stress. The transcription /ˈpɒməˌgrænɨt/ looks more diaphonemic than phonemic to me: I certainly don't have a /ɒ/ phoneme, and I doubt I have a /ɨ/ phoneme.
– sumelic
Mar 4 at 2:15
What's a weak vowel? A reduced one? As for the other, you have to write your phonemics in a way that works everywhere; otherwise they aren't phonemic, eh? You’ll note that I didn’t use those two symbols in the phonetics — which are in my own dialect, of course: I don’t say them there any more than you do. I figure eventually the pomegranate-loving poms will wake up and appreciate my diaphonemes for having been inclusive of their accents. :)
– tchrist♦
Mar 4 at 2:24
@tchrist: Well, different accents of English are typically analyzed as having different underlying inventories of vowel phonemes. Some people do postulate an even deeper underlying level of the phonology, but my impression is that this is rather controversial. Transcriptions that take multiple dialects into account are useful tools, but I was just saying that whether they are properly described as "phonemic" is questionable. But then again, the concept of the phoneme is itself questionable, so it's not really a big deal.
– sumelic
Mar 4 at 2:28
Secondary stress can explain why you get two completely different /t/ allophones in [ˈiɹəˌtʰeɾɨŋ].
– tchrist♦
Mar 4 at 2:04
Secondary stress can explain why you get two completely different /t/ allophones in [ˈiɹəˌtʰeɾɨŋ].
– tchrist♦
Mar 4 at 2:04
And I imagine pomegranate is /ˈpɒməˌgrænɨt/ phonemically, so often just [ˈpʰɑməˌgrænət̚] in many and probably most American dialects (stress notwithstanding).
– tchrist♦
Mar 4 at 2:11
And I imagine pomegranate is /ˈpɒməˌgrænɨt/ phonemically, so often just [ˈpʰɑməˌgrænət̚] in many and probably most American dialects (stress notwithstanding).
– tchrist♦
Mar 4 at 2:11
@tchrist: KarlG's answer to Why isn't the T in “relative” flapped? indicates that the rules for t-voicing/flapping/tapping are fairly complicated. Wells's preferred method of dealing with the rule is to say that the voiced flap/tap only occurs before weak vowels. That formulation takes care of "irritating" without reference to stress. The transcription /ˈpɒməˌgrænɨt/ looks more diaphonemic than phonemic to me: I certainly don't have a /ɒ/ phoneme, and I doubt I have a /ɨ/ phoneme.
– sumelic
Mar 4 at 2:15
@tchrist: KarlG's answer to Why isn't the T in “relative” flapped? indicates that the rules for t-voicing/flapping/tapping are fairly complicated. Wells's preferred method of dealing with the rule is to say that the voiced flap/tap only occurs before weak vowels. That formulation takes care of "irritating" without reference to stress. The transcription /ˈpɒməˌgrænɨt/ looks more diaphonemic than phonemic to me: I certainly don't have a /ɒ/ phoneme, and I doubt I have a /ɨ/ phoneme.
– sumelic
Mar 4 at 2:15
What's a weak vowel? A reduced one? As for the other, you have to write your phonemics in a way that works everywhere; otherwise they aren't phonemic, eh? You’ll note that I didn’t use those two symbols in the phonetics — which are in my own dialect, of course: I don’t say them there any more than you do. I figure eventually the pomegranate-loving poms will wake up and appreciate my diaphonemes for having been inclusive of their accents. :)
– tchrist♦
Mar 4 at 2:24
What's a weak vowel? A reduced one? As for the other, you have to write your phonemics in a way that works everywhere; otherwise they aren't phonemic, eh? You’ll note that I didn’t use those two symbols in the phonetics — which are in my own dialect, of course: I don’t say them there any more than you do. I figure eventually the pomegranate-loving poms will wake up and appreciate my diaphonemes for having been inclusive of their accents. :)
– tchrist♦
Mar 4 at 2:24
@tchrist: Well, different accents of English are typically analyzed as having different underlying inventories of vowel phonemes. Some people do postulate an even deeper underlying level of the phonology, but my impression is that this is rather controversial. Transcriptions that take multiple dialects into account are useful tools, but I was just saying that whether they are properly described as "phonemic" is questionable. But then again, the concept of the phoneme is itself questionable, so it's not really a big deal.
– sumelic
Mar 4 at 2:28
@tchrist: Well, different accents of English are typically analyzed as having different underlying inventories of vowel phonemes. Some people do postulate an even deeper underlying level of the phonology, but my impression is that this is rather controversial. Transcriptions that take multiple dialects into account are useful tools, but I was just saying that whether they are properly described as "phonemic" is questionable. But then again, the concept of the phoneme is itself questionable, so it's not really a big deal.
– sumelic
Mar 4 at 2:28
|
show 1 more comment
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f433876%2fwhats-the-lowered-single-quote-lookalike-marking-in-phonetic-symbols%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
