Hi Paul and Rett,
My understanding is the same as yours, Rett, that there is just a
lengthening (actually a doubling) of the length of time one lingers on
a double-consonant compared to pronouncing the same consonant singly.
Very much like in English the difference between 'unnecessary' and
'runner' - in the former the 'n' sound is lingered over, whereas in
the latter we anglophones ignore the doubling and make it sound like a
single 'n' ('runer'!) Similarly compare English 'hot tap' with
'hotter' - the 't' sound in the former being twice as long as it is
Paul, I don't believe there should be a staccato effect as in the
caricature of an Italian pronouncing English: 'I turn on the hot-ta tap'.
As a personal aside: My maternal grandfather was Italian, and
although I never knew him (he died when my mother was a child) we grew
up calling our grandmother 'nonna' which is the Italian for
'grandmother'. As normal English speakers are wont to do, we kids
would always pronounce this like the 'n' was single, and she would
always try and correct us and pronounce it the way Italians would with
a true doubling of the 'n'.
--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, rett <rett@...> wrote:
> 2006-07-01 kl. 00.35 skrev Paul Allan:
> > Does one pronounce ññ (as in Dhp. 165: "n' aañño añña'm visodhaye") by
> > doubling the length of time used to pronounce a single consonant? On
> > the other hand, .t.t. (a.t.tha, di.t.thi) requires a staccato sound,
> > correct?
> > Thanks,
> I''m not sure what you mean by staccato, but with .t.t or other doubled
> stops you get the speech organs into position (thereby stopping the air
> flow in the mouth) then hesitate before releasing the sound. Like the
> two t-s in: fat tank.
> best regards,