Page 5 of 5
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:51 am
From a linguistic standpoint it really doesn't make any sense, since they appear to have a full phonetic inventory.
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:57 am
They don't all have to be able to make all the sounds, though.
There are only, what, six phonemes in "Pikachu," right?
I am attempting to pass myself off as conversant in linguistics.
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:44 am
Here's a very rough transcription:
p,t,k are actually very basic consonants and are found in almost all world languages, so that part is believable (tʃ is its own phoneme separate from t, but it's usually created by the palatalisation of t). We also have 3 vowels at the most extreme points of vowel production, which indicates that the vowels in between are producible. You can also assume that some things are physically possible, for instance, we know that a Pikachu can produce both voiced and voiceless consonants (and other glottal states), we know that it is capable of delayed release affricates (and therefore fricatives as well), it can produce nasals because it clearly has a functioning nose and velum (which is where a k is articulated). Labiodentals are possible if we know whether a Pikachu has teeth, and since it can "bite" I'll assume so. Growling (one of Pikachu's starting abilities) can substitute for a rhotic sound. For the benefit of the doubt I'll assume that the presence of coronal t does not indicate the presence of any other alveolar sounds (which are plentiful). Without an adequate description of its oral anatomy I can safely say that its consonant inventory should be at least this big:
[p b m f v t d s z ʃ ʒ k g n ŋ ʁ x tʃ dʒ]
In addition, substitutes for /j/, substitutes for /w/. [ʁ] (which I have noted above) replaces the approximant /ɹ/. When compared with an English speaker, we are missing only three consonants [θ ð l], and both /θ/ and /ð/ are substituted with [f] and [v] in certain dialects. So the only conspicuous absent phoneme is the lateral approximant /l/... Which is, in fact, very conspicuous and unbelievable. But, assuming that for some reason a Pikachu's tongue is too limited to only touch part of the surface of the alveolar ridge, we have demonstrated that a Pikachu could be an almost entirely capable English speaker.
Wow, that was unnecessary!
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:54 am
I guess Pokemon isn't realistic after all.
Also I am impressed.
Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 5:24 am
Fuck, I typed a good response and it's gone. Oh well, next time don't slap random keys for fun.
Anyways, they pretty much shit on the fandom of old to attract a younger group. It's about ten year olds and magical pets, so of course they won't bother catering to me anymore. But it keeps the animals as pets, allows them to be expressive, cute, and having emotional response instead of being silent monsters, and it helps brand recognition. If you don't know who the fuck pikachu is after hearing it say it's name over and over, you are dumb. It's better than just barking or meowing from regular animal behaviors, although not by much.
I always thought it was funny that they find pokemon then have trouble finding out the name or something. In orange islands people acted surprised when they saw pokemon they weren't familiar with before, but now I keep seeing people having flashbacks of pokemon they weren't supposed to know existed or something from their childhood. If anyone wants to hear more complaints from me about pokemon, I'll explain the slowpoke fiasco.