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

Re: Labiovelar Phonological Identity???

Expand Messages
  • C. Darwin Goranson
    ... Er, are those labio-velars or labiovelar + w s ? What would constitute the difference soundwise? (If possible, could you give examples to explain?)
    Message 1 of 15 , Jul 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "C. Darwin Goranson"
      > <cdog_squirrel@> wrote:
      > >
      > > That would be interesting to look at. As for Torsten's idea: er,
      > > could you give a couple of examples in Italian with labiovelar stops?
      > >
      >
      > quale "which"
      > quanto "when"
      >
      >
      > Torsten
      >
      Er, are those labio-velars or "labiovelar + w"s ? What would
      constitute the difference soundwise? (If possible, could you give
      examples to explain?)
    • alex
      ... the labiovelars seems to be a theoretical joker. By myelf I don t consider them for have beeing for real. Instead of this I prefer the Rumanian living
      Message 2 of 15 , Jul 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        C. Darwin Goranson schrieb:
        >
        >
        > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:cybalist%40yahoogroups.com>,
        > "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:cybalist%40yahoogroups.com>,
        > "C. Darwin Goranson"
        > > <cdog_squirrel@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > That would be interesting to look at. As for Torsten's idea: er,
        > > > could you give a couple of examples in Italian with labiovelar stops?
        > > >
        > >
        > > quale "which"
        > > quanto "when"
        > >
        > >
        > > Torsten
        > >
        > Er, are those labio-velars or "labiovelar + w"s ? What would
        > constitute the difference soundwise? (If possible, could you give
        > examples to explain?)


        the labiovelars seems to be a theoretical joker. By myelf I don't
        consider them for have beeing for real. Instead of this I prefer the
        Rumanian living system. There is "bi" versus "g_i" and "pi" versuch
        "ki" as a matter of fact and as a living witness of this alternance,
        regardless what was the reason of making bi/g_i and pi/ki as
        alternant pair.

        Alex
      • aquila_grande
        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
        Message 3 of 15 , Jul 2, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          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.

          > the labiovelars seems to be a theoretical joker. By myelf I don't
          > consider them for have beeing for real. Instead of this I prefer the
          > Rumanian living system. There is "bi" versus "g_i" and "pi" versuch
          > "ki" as a matter of fact and as a living witness of this alternance,
          > regardless what was the reason of making bi/g_i and pi/ki as
          > alternant pair.
          >
          > Alex
          >
        • altamix
          ... allow me please the question. Where is the labiovelar in qui, queito ? I have the feeling they are written with qu just because of the tradition and
          Message 4 of 15 , Jul 2, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- 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
            of the tradition and nothing more. Of curse, the things are to hear
            in "aqua" and "quando" but this is because of the next "a"
            after "cu". Since the same examples are to find in Rum. ( where it is
            said that the Latin labiovelars changed in "p,b") , I think there is
            no labiovelar as such but a diphtong "wa" from an older "o/w" and
            nothing more. The diference -if any- is hard to hear :
            "qwak&, 1nqwa, 1nqwac^e, qwaie, qwarne ( coacã, încua, încoace,
            coaie, coarne).
            Of course we see in the other forms of the words if there has been
            an "o" or something else there since we have the oposition "corn"
            versus "coarne"(qwarne), "încoa"(1nkwa) versus "încolo"(1nkwolo) thus
            in the nominative singular there is no "labiovelar" but in plural,
            the diphtong gives the labiovelar aspect of the word. (qWa)

            Alex
          • tgpedersen
            ... stops? ... Whatever they are, they re from Latin qu- which is from PIE *kW. But the /a/ has not been influenced by it, it s still /a/, in spite of your
            Message 5 of 15 , Jul 3, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              > > > As for Torsten's idea: er,
              > > > could you give a couple of examples in Italian with labiovelar
              stops?
              > > >
              > >
              > > quale "which"
              > > quanto "when"
              > >
              > Er, are those labio-velars or "labiovelar + w"s ? What would
              > constitute the difference soundwise? (If possible, could you give
              > examples to explain?)

              Whatever they are, they're from Latin qu- which is from PIE *kW. But
              the /a/ has not been influenced by it, it's still /a/, in spite of your
              contention.


              Torsten
            • squilluncus
              ... 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
              Message 6 of 15 , 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
              • altamix
                ... the c and q in cu and qu has the same quality in my opinion. I don t hear a difference there. ... we don t mean Latin poetry here, we mean Italian
                Message 7 of 15 , Jul 3, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "squilluncus" <grvs@...> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > > 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.

                  the "c" and "q" in "cu" and "qu" has the same quality in my opinion.
                  I don't hear a difference there.
                  >
                  > In Latin poetry qu is normally considered a single entity not
                  > giving length, a witness that it was considered a single phoneme.

                  we don't mean Latin poetry here, we mean Italian and the whole
                  Romance who kept the "qu"

                  > 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
                  >

                  is the "labiovelar" who stoped the Palatalisation or was there just
                  the "u"? In Rumanian the labiovelar element could not prevent anymore
                  the palatalisation of the labiovelars, so if Rum. "c^e" is from
                  Latin "quid", then begining with II century AD , the word was
                  pronounced "ke" (as today in Italian which contrary to the said
                  about labiovelars, in "who"-words, Italian did not kept the
                  labiovelars).


                  Alex
                • aquila_grande
                  I am speking about contemporary Italian, not the development of the phonems or distinctions. As far as I can see, there is a phonemic difference between qu and
                  Message 8 of 15 , Jul 3, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I am speking about contemporary Italian, not the development of the
                    phonems or distinctions. As far as I can see, there is a phonemic
                    difference between qu and cu.

                    The phonemic difference is not the in way the velar component is
                    pronounced, but in the pronounciation of the labial element. Either
                    the labial element is asyllabic, or not.

                    There is however perhaps a possibility to analyze the labial element
                    in qu as an allophoneme of "v", since I do not remember "cv" used
                    anywhere in Italian words.


                    --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "altamix" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "squilluncus" <grvs@> wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > > 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.
                    >
                    > the "c" and "q" in "cu" and "qu" has the same quality in my
                    opinion.
                    > I don't hear a difference there.
                    > >
                    > > In Latin poetry qu is normally considered a single entity not
                    > > giving length, a witness that it was considered a single
                    phoneme.
                    >
                    > we don't mean Latin poetry here, we mean Italian and the whole
                    > Romance who kept the "qu"
                    >
                    > > 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
                    > >
                    >
                    > is the "labiovelar" who stoped the Palatalisation or was there
                    just
                    > the "u"? In Rumanian the labiovelar element could not prevent
                    anymore
                    > the palatalisation of the labiovelars, so if Rum. "c^e" is from
                    > Latin "quid", then begining with II century AD , the word was
                    > pronounced "ke" (as today in Italian which contrary to the said
                    > about labiovelars, in "who"-words, Italian did not kept the
                    > labiovelars).
                    >
                    >
                    > Alex
                    >
                  • squilluncus
                    ... just ... anymore ... OK. The labio-part must have been kept long after the general palatalisation in the west contrary to Roumanian. As for aqua and che I
                    Message 9 of 15 , Jul 3, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "altamix" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
                      >

                      > is the "labiovelar" who stoped the Palatalisation or was there
                      just
                      > the "u"? In Rumanian the labiovelar element could not prevent
                      anymore
                      > the palatalisation of the labiovelars, so if Rum. "c^e" is from
                      > Latin "quid", then begining with II century AD , the word was
                      > pronounced "ke" (as today in Italian which contrary to the said
                      > about labiovelars, in "who"-words, Italian did not kept the
                      > labiovelars).
                      >
                      OK. The labio-part must have been kept long after the general
                      palatalisation in the west contrary to Roumanian.

                      As for aqua and che I am confident that an Arabian at a dictation
                      would use qaf for the former and kaf for the latter.
                      There is a natural change of position of the tongue depending on the
                      vowel being fronted or not.
                      I am also confident that the same Arab would have used different
                      letters at a dictation from German when hearing Karl Kampf vs Kerl
                      Chemnitz.

                      /k/ in che is pronounced further to the front than /k/ in aqua and
                      this is produced naturally if a langue does not make a phonematic
                      distinction between fronted and unfronted /k/.

                      Lars
                    • Rick McCallister
                      In Italian cui is stressed on the /u/ as kúi, qui- is stressed on the /i/ as /kwi-/ ... because Aren t you confusing Spanish and Italian (which easily
                      Message 10 of 15 , Jul 3, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In Italian cui is stressed on the /u/ as kúi, qui- is stressed on the /i/ as /kwi-/

                        squilluncus <grvs@...> wrote:
                        --- In cybalist@yahoogroup s.com, "altamix" <alxmoeller@ ...> wrote:
                        >
                        > --- In cybalist@yahoogroup s.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



                        How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.

                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.