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

Re: [tied] Re: IE right & 10

Expand Messages
  • Harald Hammarström
    Speaking of IE ten, what s Piotr s and you others take on the etymology of Russian devyanosto and its Old Polish counterpart? Thanks Harald
    Message 1 of 19 , Sep 3, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Speaking of IE ten, what's Piotr's and you others' take on the etymology
      of Russian devyanosto and its Old Polish counterpart?
      Thanks
      Harald


      On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:

      > On 9/1/04 2:14 PM, Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
      > > On 8/29/04 11:50 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > >>Well, if one starts counting on the fingers of the left hand, *dek^m
      > >>or *dek^mt '10' might have meant something like 'right hand full'
      > >>or 'rightmost'. With the former meaning, /mt/ _might_ be
      > >>*met 'measure'. With the latter meaning, /m/ might be the
      > >>superlative suffix. However, why then do we have *dek^m or *dek^mt
      > >>and not *dek^sm or *dek^smt for '10'?
      > >
      > >
      > > Assuming that the *-s- of *dek^s- is some kind of detachable suffix, and
      > > that *dek^- is an acceptable combinative form, one would expect, in a
      > > hypothetical compound with *met-, *dék^-mot- in the strong cases, with
      > > *dek^m.t- as its weak allomoprph. Why then do we have *-(d)k^omt- in the
      > > decadic numerals? It seems to rule out *-m(e)t-.
      > >
      > > Piotr
      >
      > An afterthought: if one wants *dék^m.t to be an analysable compound, the
      > only possibility I can see is *dék^-h1m.t- (gen.pl. *dk^-h1m.t-óm,
      > compositional collective or animate stem *'-(d)k^-h1omt-). The second
      > element could be *-h1m.-t-, an extended root noun derived from *h1em-
      > 'take, get' (the *-t- extension is normal after root-final sonorants and
      > laryngeals, cf. *-gWm.t- in compounds), with the approximate meaning
      > 'taking'. What we gain is a natural explanation of the heterorganic
      > sequence *-mt- and of the early disappearance of the initial *d- in
      > *dk^-. Before a vowel we would expect a "thorny" treatment of *tk^- <
      > *dk^-, but if a consonant (here, *h1) follows, the expected outcome
      > involves the loss of the initial stop! I'm beginning to like this idea.
      >
      > Piotr
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Harald Hammarström
      I remember rhotics were discussed a year or so ago. I seem to recall that someone said the notorious Czech r^ sound was not unique to Czech but occured in some
      Message 2 of 19 , Sep 3, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        I remember rhotics were discussed a year or so ago. I seem to recall
        that someone said the notorious Czech r^ sound was not unique to Czech
        but occured in some other language as well. Did I dream taht up?
        Thanks,
        Harald



        On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Harald Hammarström wrote:

        > Speaking of IE ten, what's Piotr's and you others' take on the etymology
        > of Russian devyanosto and its Old Polish counterpart?
        > Thanks
        > Harald
        >
        >
        > On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
        >
        > > On 9/1/04 2:14 PM, Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
        > > > On 8/29/04 11:50 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >>Well, if one starts counting on the fingers of the left hand, *dek^m
        > > >>or *dek^mt '10' might have meant something like 'right hand full'
        > > >>or 'rightmost'. With the former meaning, /mt/ _might_ be
        > > >>*met 'measure'. With the latter meaning, /m/ might be the
        > > >>superlative suffix. However, why then do we have *dek^m or *dek^mt
        > > >>and not *dek^sm or *dek^smt for '10'?
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Assuming that the *-s- of *dek^s- is some kind of detachable suffix, and
        > > > that *dek^- is an acceptable combinative form, one would expect, in a
        > > > hypothetical compound with *met-, *dék^-mot- in the strong cases, with
        > > > *dek^m.t- as its weak allomoprph. Why then do we have *-(d)k^omt- in the
        > > > decadic numerals? It seems to rule out *-m(e)t-.
        > > >
        > > > Piotr
        > >
        > > An afterthought: if one wants *dék^m.t to be an analysable compound, the
        > > only possibility I can see is *dék^-h1m.t- (gen.pl. *dk^-h1m.t-óm,
        > > compositional collective or animate stem *'-(d)k^-h1omt-). The second
        > > element could be *-h1m.-t-, an extended root noun derived from *h1em-
        > > 'take, get' (the *-t- extension is normal after root-final sonorants and
        > > laryngeals, cf. *-gWm.t- in compounds), with the approximate meaning
        > > 'taking'. What we gain is a natural explanation of the heterorganic
        > > sequence *-mt- and of the early disappearance of the initial *d- in
        > > *dk^-. Before a vowel we would expect a "thorny" treatment of *tk^- <
        > > *dk^-, but if a consonant (here, *h1) follows, the expected outcome
        > > involves the loss of the initial stop! I'm beginning to like this idea.
        > >
        > > Piotr
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
      • mkapovic@ffzg.hr
        It occures in some (south?)African languages. I think I once saw something about something like r^ in one Italic language, but maybe that was some dream of
        Message 3 of 19 , Sep 3, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          It occures in some (south?)African languages. I think I once saw something
          about something like r^ in one Italic language, but maybe that was some
          dream of mine? :-/

          Mate

          > I remember rhotics were discussed a year or so ago. I seem to recall
          > that someone said the notorious Czech r^ sound was not unique to Czech
          > but occured in some other language as well. Did I dream taht up?
          > Thanks,
          > Harald
          >
          >
          >
          > On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Harald Hammarström wrote:
          >
          >> Speaking of IE ten, what's Piotr's and you others' take on the etymology
          >> of Russian devyanosto and its Old Polish counterpart?
          >> Thanks
          >> Harald
          >>
          >>
          >> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
          >>
          >> > On 9/1/04 2:14 PM, Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
          >> > > On 8/29/04 11:50 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
          >> > >
          >> > >
          >> > >>Well, if one starts counting on the fingers of the left hand, *dek^m
          >> > >>or *dek^mt '10' might have meant something like 'right hand full'
          >> > >>or 'rightmost'. With the former meaning, /mt/ _might_ be
          >> > >>*met 'measure'. With the latter meaning, /m/ might be the
          >> > >>superlative suffix. However, why then do we have *dek^m or *dek^mt
          >> > >>and not *dek^sm or *dek^smt for '10'?
          >> > >
          >> > >
          >> > > Assuming that the *-s- of *dek^s- is some kind of detachable suffix,
          >> and
          >> > > that *dek^- is an acceptable combinative form, one would expect, in
          >> a
          >> > > hypothetical compound with *met-, *dék^-mot- in the strong cases,
          >> with
          >> > > *dek^m.t- as its weak allomoprph. Why then do we have *-(d)k^omt- in
          >> the
          >> > > decadic numerals? It seems to rule out *-m(e)t-.
          >> > >
          >> > > Piotr
          >> >
          >> > An afterthought: if one wants *dék^m.t to be an analysable compound,
          >> the
          >> > only possibility I can see is *dék^-h1m.t- (gen.pl. *dk^-h1m.t-óm,
          >> > compositional collective or animate stem *'-(d)k^-h1omt-). The second
          >> > element could be *-h1m.-t-, an extended root noun derived from *h1em-
          >> > 'take, get' (the *-t- extension is normal after root-final sonorants
          >> and
          >> > laryngeals, cf. *-gWm.t- in compounds), with the approximate meaning
          >> > 'taking'. What we gain is a natural explanation of the heterorganic
          >> > sequence *-mt- and of the early disappearance of the initial *d- in
          >> > *dk^-. Before a vowel we would expect a "thorny" treatment of *tk^- <
          >> > *dk^-, but if a consonant (here, *h1) follows, the expected outcome
          >> > involves the loss of the initial stop! I'm beginning to like this
          >> idea.
          >> >
          >> > Piotr
          >> >
          >> >
          >> >
          >> >
          >> >
          >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >> >
          >> >
          >> >
          >> >
          >> >
          >> >
          >>
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • petusek
          I am not aware of any sound like that. That Czech sound is a palatal vibrant of two realisational variants: voiced and unvoiced. The closest relative
          Message 4 of 19 , Sep 3, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            I am not aware of any sound like that. That Czech sound is a palatal vibrant
            of two realisational variants: voiced and unvoiced. The closest "relative"
            (phonetical) seems to be the Polish the "rz" sound...


            Petusek

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: <mkapovic@...>
            To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 12:17 AM
            Subject: Re: [tied] Czech r^


            > It occures in some (south?)African languages. I think I once saw something
            > about something like r^ in one Italic language, but maybe that was some
            > dream of mine? :-/
            >
            > Mate
            >
            > > I remember rhotics were discussed a year or so ago. I seem to recall
            > > that someone said the notorious Czech r^ sound was not unique to Czech
            > > but occured in some other language as well. Did I dream taht up?
            > > Thanks,
            > > Harald
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Harald Hammarström wrote:
            > >
            > >> Speaking of IE ten, what's Piotr's and you others' take on the
            etymology
            > >> of Russian devyanosto and its Old Polish counterpart?
            > >> Thanks
            > >> Harald
            > >>
            > >>
            > >> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
            > >>
            > >> > On 9/1/04 2:14 PM, Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
            > >> > > On 8/29/04 11:50 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
            > >> > >
            > >> > >
            > >> > >>Well, if one starts counting on the fingers of the left hand,
            *dek^m
            > >> > >>or *dek^mt '10' might have meant something like 'right hand full'
            > >> > >>or 'rightmost'. With the former meaning, /mt/ _might_ be
            > >> > >>*met 'measure'. With the latter meaning, /m/ might be the
            > >> > >>superlative suffix. However, why then do we have *dek^m or *dek^mt
            > >> > >>and not *dek^sm or *dek^smt for '10'?
            > >> > >
            > >> > >
            > >> > > Assuming that the *-s- of *dek^s- is some kind of detachable
            suffix,
            > >> and
            > >> > > that *dek^- is an acceptable combinative form, one would expect, in
            > >> a
            > >> > > hypothetical compound with *met-, *dék^-mot- in the strong cases,
            > >> with
            > >> > > *dek^m.t- as its weak allomoprph. Why then do we have *-(d)k^omt-
            in
            > >> the
            > >> > > decadic numerals? It seems to rule out *-m(e)t-.
            > >> > >
            > >> > > Piotr
            > >> >
            > >> > An afterthought: if one wants *dék^m.t to be an analysable compound,
            > >> the
            > >> > only possibility I can see is *dék^-h1m.t- (gen.pl. *dk^-h1m.t-óm,
            > >> > compositional collective or animate stem *'-(d)k^-h1omt-). The second
            > >> > element could be *-h1m.-t-, an extended root noun derived from *h1em-
            > >> > 'take, get' (the *-t- extension is normal after root-final sonorants
            > >> and
            > >> > laryngeals, cf. *-gWm.t- in compounds), with the approximate meaning
            > >> > 'taking'. What we gain is a natural explanation of the heterorganic
            > >> > sequence *-mt- and of the early disappearance of the initial *d- in
            > >> > *dk^-. Before a vowel we would expect a "thorny" treatment of *tk^- <
            > >> > *dk^-, but if a consonant (here, *h1) follows, the expected outcome
            > >> > involves the loss of the initial stop! I'm beginning to like this
            > >> idea.
            > >> >
            > >> > Piotr
            > >> >
            > >> >
            > >> >
            > >> >
            > >> >
            > >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
            > >> >
            > >> >
            > >> >
            > >> >
            > >> >
            > >> >
            > >>
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Yahoo! Groups Links
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • petusek
            If there is the very same sound in some African languages, could anyone tell me which languages, please? And, does it really sound like the Czech r^? ...
            Message 5 of 19 , Sep 4, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              If there is the very same sound in some African languages, could anyone tell
              me which languages, please? And, does it really sound like the Czech r^?

              > I am not aware of any sound like that. That Czech sound is a palatal
              vibrant
              > of two realisational variants: voiced and unvoiced. The closest "relative"
              > (phonetical) seems to be the Polish the "rz" sound...
              >
              >
              > Petusek
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: <mkapovic@...>
              > To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
              > Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 12:17 AM
              > Subject: Re: [tied] Czech r^
              >
              >
              > > It occures in some (south?)African languages. I think I once saw
              something
              > > about something like r^ in one Italic language, but maybe that was some
              > > dream of mine? :-/
              > >
              > > Mate
              > >
              > > > I remember rhotics were discussed a year or so ago. I seem to recall
              > > > that someone said the notorious Czech r^ sound was not unique to Czech
              > > > but occured in some other language as well. Did I dream taht up?
              > > > Thanks,
              > > > Harald
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Harald Hammarström wrote:
              > > >
              > > >> Speaking of IE ten, what's Piotr's and you others' take on the
              > etymology
              > > >> of Russian devyanosto and its Old Polish counterpart?
              > > >> Thanks
              > > >> Harald
              > > >>
              > > >>
              > > >> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
              > > >>
              > > >> > On 9/1/04 2:14 PM, Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
              > > >> > > On 8/29/04 11:50 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
              > > >> > >
              > > >> > >
              > > >> > >>Well, if one starts counting on the fingers of the left hand,
              > *dek^m
              > > >> > >>or *dek^mt '10' might have meant something like 'right hand full'
              > > >> > >>or 'rightmost'. With the former meaning, /mt/ _might_ be
              > > >> > >>*met 'measure'. With the latter meaning, /m/ might be the
              > > >> > >>superlative suffix. However, why then do we have *dek^m or
              *dek^mt
              > > >> > >>and not *dek^sm or *dek^smt for '10'?
              > > >> > >
              > > >> > >
              > > >> > > Assuming that the *-s- of *dek^s- is some kind of detachable
              > suffix,
              > > >> and
              > > >> > > that *dek^- is an acceptable combinative form, one would expect,
              in
              > > >> a
              > > >> > > hypothetical compound with *met-, *dék^-mot- in the strong cases,
              > > >> with
              > > >> > > *dek^m.t- as its weak allomoprph. Why then do we have *-(d)k^omt-
              > in
              > > >> the
              > > >> > > decadic numerals? It seems to rule out *-m(e)t-.
              > > >> > >
              > > >> > > Piotr
              > > >> >
              > > >> > An afterthought: if one wants *dék^m.t to be an analysable
              compound,
              > > >> the
              > > >> > only possibility I can see is *dék^-h1m.t- (gen.pl. *dk^-h1m.t-óm,
              > > >> > compositional collective or animate stem *'-(d)k^-h1omt-). The
              second
              > > >> > element could be *-h1m.-t-, an extended root noun derived from
              *h1em-
              > > >> > 'take, get' (the *-t- extension is normal after root-final
              sonorants
              > > >> and
              > > >> > laryngeals, cf. *-gWm.t- in compounds), with the approximate
              meaning
              > > >> > 'taking'. What we gain is a natural explanation of the heterorganic
              > > >> > sequence *-mt- and of the early disappearance of the initial *d- in
              > > >> > *dk^-. Before a vowel we would expect a "thorny" treatment of *tk^-
              <
              > > >> > *dk^-, but if a consonant (here, *h1) follows, the expected outcome
              > > >> > involves the loss of the initial stop! I'm beginning to like this
              > > >> idea.
              > > >> >
              > > >> > Piotr
              > > >> >
              > > >> >
              > > >> >
              > > >> >
              > > >> >
              > > >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > > >> >
              > > >> >
              > > >> >
              > > >> >
              > > >> >
              > > >> >
              > > >>
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • mkapovic@ffzg.hr
              I can t remember which language exactly, but I m pretty sure I saw that somewhere. Polish /rz/ *was* like Czech /r^/ but now it s just plain /z^/ or /s^/ if
              Message 6 of 19 , Sep 4, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                I can't remember which language exactly, but I'm pretty sure I saw that
                somewhere.
                Polish /rz/ *was* like Czech /r^/ but now it's just plain /z^/ or /s^/ if
                devoiced.

                Mate

                > If there is the very same sound in some African languages, could anyone
                > tell
                > me which languages, please? And, does it really sound like the Czech r^?
                >
                >> I am not aware of any sound like that. That Czech sound is a palatal
                > vibrant
                >> of two realisational variants: voiced and unvoiced. The closest
                >> "relative"
                >> (phonetical) seems to be the Polish the "rz" sound...
                >>
                >>
                >> Petusek
                >>
                >> ----- Original Message -----
                >> From: <mkapovic@...>
                >> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
                >> Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 12:17 AM
                >> Subject: Re: [tied] Czech r^
                >>
                >>
                >> > It occures in some (south?)African languages. I think I once saw
                > something
                >> > about something like r^ in one Italic language, but maybe that was
                >> some
                >> > dream of mine? :-/
                >> >
                >> > Mate
                >> >
                >> > > I remember rhotics were discussed a year or so ago. I seem to recall
                >> > > that someone said the notorious Czech r^ sound was not unique to
                >> Czech
                >> > > but occured in some other language as well. Did I dream taht up?
                >> > > Thanks,
                >> > > Harald
                >> > >
                >> > >
                >> > >
                >> > > On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Harald Hammarström wrote:
                >> > >
                >> > >> Speaking of IE ten, what's Piotr's and you others' take on the
                >> etymology
                >> > >> of Russian devyanosto and its Old Polish counterpart?
                >> > >> Thanks
                >> > >> Harald
                >> > >>
                >> > >>
                >> > >> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
                >> > >>
                >> > >> > On 9/1/04 2:14 PM, Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
                >> > >> > > On 8/29/04 11:50 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
                >> > >> > >
                >> > >> > >
                >> > >> > >>Well, if one starts counting on the fingers of the left hand,
                >> *dek^m
                >> > >> > >>or *dek^mt '10' might have meant something like 'right hand
                >> full'
                >> > >> > >>or 'rightmost'. With the former meaning, /mt/ _might_ be
                >> > >> > >>*met 'measure'. With the latter meaning, /m/ might be the
                >> > >> > >>superlative suffix. However, why then do we have *dek^m or
                > *dek^mt
                >> > >> > >>and not *dek^sm or *dek^smt for '10'?
                >> > >> > >
                >> > >> > >
                >> > >> > > Assuming that the *-s- of *dek^s- is some kind of detachable
                >> suffix,
                >> > >> and
                >> > >> > > that *dek^- is an acceptable combinative form, one would
                >> expect,
                > in
                >> > >> a
                >> > >> > > hypothetical compound with *met-, *dék^-mot- in the strong
                >> cases,
                >> > >> with
                >> > >> > > *dek^m.t- as its weak allomoprph. Why then do we have
                >> *-(d)k^omt-
                >> in
                >> > >> the
                >> > >> > > decadic numerals? It seems to rule out *-m(e)t-.
                >> > >> > >
                >> > >> > > Piotr
                >> > >> >
                >> > >> > An afterthought: if one wants *dék^m.t to be an analysable
                > compound,
                >> > >> the
                >> > >> > only possibility I can see is *dék^-h1m.t- (gen.pl.
                >> *dk^-h1m.t-óm,
                >> > >> > compositional collective or animate stem *'-(d)k^-h1omt-). The
                > second
                >> > >> > element could be *-h1m.-t-, an extended root noun derived from
                > *h1em-
                >> > >> > 'take, get' (the *-t- extension is normal after root-final
                > sonorants
                >> > >> and
                >> > >> > laryngeals, cf. *-gWm.t- in compounds), with the approximate
                > meaning
                >> > >> > 'taking'. What we gain is a natural explanation of the
                >> heterorganic
                >> > >> > sequence *-mt- and of the early disappearance of the initial *d-
                >> in
                >> > >> > *dk^-. Before a vowel we would expect a "thorny" treatment of
                >> *tk^-
                > <
                >> > >> > *dk^-, but if a consonant (here, *h1) follows, the expected
                >> outcome
                >> > >> > involves the loss of the initial stop! I'm beginning to like this
                >> > >> idea.
                >> > >> >
                >> > >> > Piotr
                >> > >> >
                >> > >> >
                >> > >> >
                >> > >> >
                >> > >> >
                >> > >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >> > >> >
                >> > >> >
                >> > >> >
                >> > >> >
                >> > >> >
                >> > >> >
                >> > >>
                >> > >
                >> > >
                >> > >
                >> > >
                >> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >> > >
                >> > >
                >> > >
                >> > >
                >> > >
                >> > >
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >
                >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >> Yahoo! Groups Links
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
              • petusek
                ... Oh, yes, that s right. I should write historically , originally . What is the IPA sign of the sound?
                Message 7 of 19 , Sep 4, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  > I can't remember which language exactly, but I'm pretty sure I saw that
                  > somewhere.
                  > Polish /rz/ *was* like Czech /r^/ but now it's just plain /z^/ or /s^/ if
                  > devoiced.

                  Oh, yes, that's right. I should write "historically", "originally". What is
                  the IPA sign of the sound?
                • Brian M. Scott
                  ... The Handbook of the IPA uses [r] with the raised diacritic (an inverted T below the letter), as does Comrie in Languages of Eastern and Southern Europe
                  Message 8 of 19 , Sep 4, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 8:09:29 AM on Saturday, September 4, 2004, petusek wrote:

                    >> I can't remember which language exactly, but I'm pretty
                    >> sure I saw that somewhere. Polish /rz/ *was* like Czech
                    >> /r^/ but now it's just plain /z^/ or /s^/ if devoiced.

                    > Oh, yes, that's right. I should write "historically",
                    > "originally". What is the IPA sign of the sound?

                    The Handbook of the IPA uses [r] with the raised diacritic
                    (an inverted 'T' below the letter), as does Comrie in
                    'Languages of Eastern and Southern Europe' in Section 59
                    (Adaptations of the Roman Alphabet) in _The World's Writing
                    Systems_, Daniels & Bright, eds.; Ladefoged & Maddieson
                    use the laminal diacritic (a rectangle under the letter).

                    Brian
                  • petusek
                    ... Oh, thank you. And I have to correct myself, the Czech sound is a prealveolar (not a palatal).
                    Message 9 of 19 , Sep 4, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > At 8:09:29 AM on Saturday, September 4, 2004, petusek wrote:
                      >
                      > >> I can't remember which language exactly, but I'm pretty
                      > >> sure I saw that somewhere. Polish /rz/ *was* like Czech
                      > >> /r^/ but now it's just plain /z^/ or /s^/ if devoiced.
                      >
                      > > Oh, yes, that's right. I should write "historically",
                      > > "originally". What is the IPA sign of the sound?
                      >
                      > The Handbook of the IPA uses [r] with the raised diacritic
                      > (an inverted 'T' below the letter), as does Comrie in
                      > 'Languages of Eastern and Southern Europe' in Section 59
                      > (Adaptations of the Roman Alphabet) in _The World's Writing
                      > Systems_, Daniels & Bright, eds.; Ladefoged & Maddieson
                      > use the laminal diacritic (a rectangle under the letter).
                      >
                      > Brian

                      Oh, thank you. And I have to correct myself, the Czech sound is a
                      prealveolar (not a palatal).
                    • Roger Mills
                      ... that someone said the notorious Czech r^ sound was not unique to Czech but occured in some other language as well. Did I dream taht up? I encountered
                      Message 10 of 19 , Sep 4, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Harald Hammarström wrote:

                        >I remember rhotics were discussed a year or so ago. I seem to recall
                        that someone said the notorious Czech r^ sound was not unique to Czech
                        but occured in some other language as well. Did I dream taht up?

                        I encountered something very similar in provincial Argentina (Tucumán, in
                        fact)-- I was told I could change money at "Casa ['r^eZes]" (though at the
                        time it sounded more like [ZeZes])-- totally perplexed until the speaker
                        pointed down the street to "REYES". An knowledgeable Argentine friend later
                        claimed it was the same as the Czech r^, though in careless speech it can
                        merge with the [Z] pronunciation of "ll" and "y". It's somewhat
                        stigmatized; sophisticates and comedians in the cities made fun of it.

                        I've also heard it equated with Chinese "r" as in ren 'person', though I
                        believe that's just a retroflexed fricative, not a trill.
                      • mkapovic@ffzg.hr
                        ... It is not all that different but it s definitely not the same. And r z^ changes and all the possibilities in between (including Czech r^) are not so
                        Message 11 of 19 , Sep 5, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > Harald Hammarström wrote:
                          >
                          >>I remember rhotics were discussed a year or so ago. I seem to recall
                          > that someone said the notorious Czech r^ sound was not unique to Czech
                          > but occured in some other language as well. Did I dream taht up?
                          >
                          > I encountered something very similar in provincial Argentina (Tucumán, in
                          > fact)-- I was told I could change money at "Casa ['r^eZes]" (though at the
                          > time it sounded more like [ZeZes])-- totally perplexed until the speaker
                          > pointed down the street to "REYES". An knowledgeable Argentine friend
                          > later
                          > claimed it was the same as the Czech r^, though in careless speech it can
                          > merge with the [Z] pronunciation of "ll" and "y". It's somewhat
                          > stigmatized; sophisticates and comedians in the cities made fun of it.
                          >
                          > I've also heard it equated with Chinese "r" as in ren 'person', though I
                          > believe that's just a retroflexed fricative, not a trill.

                          It is not all that different but it's definitely not the same. And r > z^
                          changes and all the possibilities in between (including Czech r^) are not
                          so uncommon in world languages.

                          Mate
                        • tolgs001
                          ... Methinks some kind of [r] in Turkish (and other Turkic languages) is quite similar (as a final consonant?). George
                          Message 12 of 19 , Sep 5, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            >It is not all that different but it's definitely not the same.
                            >And r > z^ changes and all the possibilities in between
                            >(including Czech r^) are not so uncommon in world languages.
                            >
                            >Mate

                            Methinks some kind of [r] in Turkish (and other Turkic
                            languages) is quite similar (as a final consonant?).

                            George
                          • mkapovic@ffzg.hr
                            ... It is similar but I don t think it s so much a question of final consonants in Turkish. The z^-ing (:-)) of r s in Turkish does not happen only in final
                            Message 13 of 19 , Sep 5, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              >
                              >>It is not all that different but it's definitely not the same.
                              >>And r > z^ changes and all the possibilities in between
                              >>(including Czech r^) are not so uncommon in world languages.
                              >>
                              >>Mate
                              >
                              > Methinks some kind of [r] in Turkish (and other Turkic
                              > languages) is quite similar (as a final consonant?).
                              >
                              > George

                              It is similar but I don't think it's so much a question of final
                              consonants in Turkish. The "z^-ing" (:-)) of r's in Turkish does not
                              happen only in final position (unlike for instance the devoicing of /r/ in
                              Macedonian) and I would say it's, at least partially, gender-related.
                              Women tend to pronounce r's like z^'s more than men.
                              But in Czech and Polish, the process was different because it was related
                              only to palatalisation in front of the front vowels.

                              Mate
                            • Gordon Selway
                              There are dialects of Gaelic where r may be realised by placing the tip of the tongue at the back (or the edge) of the teeth, and where the sound is not
                              Message 14 of 19 , Sep 5, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                There are dialects of Gaelic where 'r' may be realised by placing the
                                tip of the tongue at the back (or the edge) of the teeth, and where
                                the sound is not unlike 'z' or 'th' (depending on the speaker and/or
                                the dialect). But I am not clear how Czech 'r^' is articulated.
                                Could someone oblige with a brief description?

                                Best wishes,


                                Gordon
                                <gordonselway@...>

                                At 3:30 pm +0000 05/09/2004, tolgs001 wrote:
                                > >It is not all that different but it's definitely not the same.
                                >>And r > z^ changes and all the possibilities in between
                                >>(including Czech r^) are not so uncommon in world languages.
                                >>
                                >>Mate
                                >
                                >Methinks some kind of [r] in Turkish (and other Turkic languages) is
                                >quite similar (as a final consonant?).
                                >
                                >George
                              • petusek
                                Czech r^ is a prealveolar vibrant of two realizations: voiced and voiceless. Foreigners, having problems with its articulation, often help themselves combining
                                Message 15 of 19 , Sep 5, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Czech r^ is a prealveolar vibrant of two realizations: voiced and voiceless.
                                  Foreigners, having problems with its articulation, often help themselves
                                  combining [r]+[zh] (voiced) or [r]+[sh] (voiceless), but the result is far
                                  from correct. However, somewhere on the border between those two sounds,
                                  something like Czech r^ may occur. If you want to produce this sound, you
                                  should do it just like Czech children - those who have logopaedic problems.
                                  First of all (those who cannot do so), you should learn the strong vibrating
                                  "Spanish" (or Czech :-)) [r]. If you can articulate a long one - [r:] - you
                                  can start with [r^]. The change in your mouth that must take place is moving
                                  the tip of your tongue further to the palatum, to the prealveolar sector and
                                  try to keep the tongue vibrating as long as you can. The orthophonic
                                  articulation of r^ is always accommodated by a slight rounding of lips.
                                  Well, I hope my explanation will help somebody :-) Have fun trying to learn
                                  Czech r^ :-)))

                                  If you want, Gordon, I will send you a short sound record :-)

                                  Petusek

                                  > There are dialects of Gaelic where 'r' may be realised by placing the
                                  > tip of the tongue at the back (or the edge) of the teeth, and where
                                  > the sound is not unlike 'z' or 'th' (depending on the speaker and/or
                                  > the dialect). But I am not clear how Czech 'r^' is articulated.
                                  > Could someone oblige with a brief description?
                                  >
                                  > Best wishes,
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Gordon
                                  > <gordonselway@...>
                                  >
                                  > At 3:30 pm +0000 05/09/2004, tolgs001 wrote:
                                  > > >It is not all that different but it's definitely not the same.
                                  > >>And r > z^ changes and all the possibilities in between
                                  > >>(including Czech r^) are not so uncommon in world languages.
                                  > >>
                                  > >>Mate
                                  > >
                                  > >Methinks some kind of [r] in Turkish (and other Turkic languages) is
                                  > >quite similar (as a final consonant?).
                                  > >
                                  > >George
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.