225Re: i and y in Quenya: two phonemes or one?
- Sep 7 2:32 AMPetri Tikka wrote:
> > The _j_ is an easening sound here, it is sometimes not pronouncedAles Bican wrote:
> > at all, but most often it is a gliding sound to help the transition to
>> the next vowel after an _i_. The gliding sound is not the same as
>> the _j_ that is not next to an _i_. In Finnish, /j/ and /i/ are seperate
>> phonemes, eg. _paju_ "willow" is never pronounced with an _i_.
> **I see. However, it does not imply from the fact that _paju_ is never**In Finnish, the sound [ñ] occurs only before [k] (the voiced [g] is
> pronounced with [i] that the j and i are necessarily separate phonemes.
> Their distribution may be limited: [j] between vowels and [i] between
> consonants, for instance. It may depend on the position and the
> environment. Similarly as in the Third Age Quenya, the sound [ñ] occurs
> only before velars ([k], [g]), that is in a position where [n] is never
> pronounced. In the Third Age Quenya the sounds [ñ] and [n] are
> allomorphs of the phoneme /n/.
unknown in Finnish) or another [ñ], that is in a position where [n] is
never pronounced. One can say that both in Finnish and Quenya [n]
and [ñ] or [i] and [j] are allomorphs, but in their pronunciation
they are so different that they are often written with a different letter.
To my knowledge, in Finnish all these four sounds are considered
separate phonemes, not allomorphs.
> **Note that this does not make [k] and [g] allomorphs, since**But might not the free distribution between [w] and [u] or
> they are in free distribution while [w] and [u] are (presumably)
> in complementary distribution. This means that if we replace [k]
> with [g], the replacement will change the meaning of a word.
> For instance, there is a minimal pair _anga_ and _anka_. On
> the other hand, you cannot freely replace [w] with [u], and there
> is no minimal pair in Quenya involving w contra v (as far as I am
[j] and [i] be historical? There must be a difference between
_áya_ "awe" (XII:363) and _aiya_ "hail" (L:385). It might
be that _aiya_ is an older form of _áya_ that survived as
a reverential form, distinct from _áya_. It is also possible that
they are only distinct having different meanings by their context,
not by form.
> > [ha-ja] is not possible because it is written with an _i_. Tolkien**Everything is possible in Tolkienian linguistics, but that is not proof.
> > never stated that he used _i_ as _j_ in Quenya.
> **Sure, but this does not mean it is not possible. Cf the. word-initial
> _i_ in words like _ia_ etc. (already mentioned by Hans (gentlebeldin)).
> And although Tolkien rejected these words, it is possible that, say,
> _ia_ was pronounced as [ja].
Petri Tikka Helsinki, Finland
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>