Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

45197[tied] Re: Labiovelar Phonological Identity???

Expand Messages
  • squilluncus
    Jul 3, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "altamix" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "aquila_grande" <aquila_grande@>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > In Italian there is an opposition between "qu" and "cu",
      examples:
      >
      > > qui-here, quieto-still, cui-which, acuito-sharp
      > >
      > > The difference is that in "qu", the labial komponent is more or
      > > less overlapping with the velar stop, where in "cu" the labial
      > > component is a separate syllable.
      >
      >
      > allow me please the question. Where is the labiovelar in "qui,
      > queito"? I have the feeling they are written with "qu" just
      because

      Aren't you confusing Spanish and Italian (which easily happens)?
      However in Spanish qu still has a distinct function as a "hardener"
      before fronted vowel.

      In Latin poetry qu is normally considered a single entity not giving
      length, a witness that it was considered a single phoneme.
      There are exceptions, however, but these should be considered
      licentia poetica to help out poets to form the meter:
      Talia te fallant utinam mendacia, copo:
      tu vendes a-cü-am 'et bibes ipse merum

      (or perhaps "set bibes ipse merum" to give rehabilitation to the
      unknown poet).

      In some polyglot areas (as Pompei) we shouldn't, however, exclude qu
      as c + u among speakers having Latin as a second language. But this
      never prevailed as witnessed by modern Italian retaining labiovelar
      and French, Spanish and Portuguese retaining a hard non-palatalised
      k before fronted vowels after delabialisation.

      Lars
    • Show all 15 messages in this topic