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

Quenya intervocalic -d-'s revisited

Expand Messages
  • Pavel Iosad
    Aiya Lambengolmor, Well, here s one to discuss the latest publications. I ve already posted ths on TolkLang, but I guess there won t be trouble if I try to
    Message 1 of 15 , May 31, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Aiya Lambengolmor,

      Well, here's one to discuss the latest publications.
      I've already posted ths on TolkLang, but I guess
      there won't be trouble if I try to initiate the
      discussion here as well.

      While I was re-reading VT43 again, the following caught my eye on p. 33,
      "the contemporary list of prepositions mentioned in the discussion of
      _aselye_ above gives the root _ara_ 'along side' (in apparent contrast
      with another root, _ada_ 'against, opposed to, opposite)...'

      Carl informs me that the 'roots' in question are apparently Eldarin,
      not Quenya. Thus the initial point I raised on TolkLang is sated.
      However, it is still obvious that these two roots would merge if all
      we surmise about the behaviour of Quenya consonants holds true.
      Nevertheless, given the roots' opposite meanings, I would suggest that
      it is possible that the _d_ > _r_ shift should be blocked by the
      necessity of disambiguation. It doesn't seem likely that antonyms
      should be homonyms in a language (oh yes, there's Mandarin _míng_ which
      means both 'bright' and 'dark', but still...). Therefore the question
      is still valid - can sound changes be blocked by semantic necessities
      in Quenya? Can then the _d_ in _Aldudénië_ be written off to
      disambiguation requirements?

      Pavel
      (who is more and more amazed at he pace the list appears to have taken!)
      --
      Pavel Iosad pavel_iosad@...

      'I am a philologist, and thus a misunderstood man'
      --JRR Tolkien, _The Notion Club Papers_

      --------------------------------------

      [I should point out that there is a measure of fluidity to the list of
      prepositional elements in question, so that simply because two elements
      are found together in the list, and neither is crossed out, does not
      _necessarily_ mean that Tolkien intended both to coexist. I would further
      point out that since these are Eldarin elements, even if these two
      elements did coexist in the parent language, it is not necessarily the
      case that they would both survive into Quenya. It may well be that one of
      the convergent elements would be selected over the other, which would
      then have no reflexes in the descendant language. Still, your question
      about the influence of semantics on phonological development remains,
      and is quite interesting. Carl]
    • Carl F. Hostetter
      ... There is another factor to consider about the possible convergence of these two particular roots. While along side and against, opposed to, opposite
      Message 2 of 15 , May 31, 2002
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        On 5/31/02 7:42 PM, "Pavel Iosad" <pavel_iosad@...> wrote:

        > While I was re-reading VT43 again, the following caught my eye on p. 33,
        > "the contemporary list of prepositions mentioned in the discussion of
        > _aselye_ above gives the root _ara_ 'along side' (in apparent contrast
        > with another root, _ada_ 'against, opposed to, opposite)...'

        There is another factor to consider about the possible convergence of these
        two particular roots. While "along side" and "against, opposed to, opposite"
        may seem impossibly disparate in sense, English itself shows a blending and
        blurring of these concepts. Consider: if I say I am fighting _with_ someone,
        only context can determine whether I mean that I am fighting _against_
        someone, or fighting _along side_ them. Either interpretation is possible.
        And if I say I am _against_ something, I can mean that I am _opposed_ to it,
        or that I am _along side_ it (here, the nature of the thing say I am against
        will likely be determinative).


        |======================================================================|
        | Carl F. Hostetter Aelfwine@... http://www.elvish.org |
        | |
        | ho bios brachys, he de techne makre. |
        | Ars longa, vita brevis. |
        | The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne. |
        | "I wish life was not so short," he thought. "Languages take |
        | such a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about." |
        |======================================================================|
      • Ivan A Derzhanski
        ... I don t think so. The prime directive is: No /d/ in Quenya except in the combinations /ld nd rd/ (LR:1155). ... There s also Mandarin _guai1_ (1)
        Message 3 of 15 , May 31, 2002
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Pavel Iosad wrote:

          > Nevertheless, given the roots' opposite meanings, I would suggest
          > that it is possible that the _d_ > _r_ shift should be blocked by
          > the necessity of disambiguation.

          I don't think so. The prime directive is: No /d/ in Quenya
          except in the combinations /ld nd rd/ (LR:1155).

          > It doesn't seem likely that antonyms should be homonyms in a
          > language (oh yes, there's Mandarin _míng_ which means both
          > 'bright' and 'dark', but still...).

          There's also Mandarin _guai1_ (1) `obedient, well-behaved';
          (2) contrary, in spite of'. Or Russian _zadut'_ `blow out
          (a candle); blow in (a blast-furnace)', _zalechit' `heal (a
          wound); doctor (a patient) to death'. Or Persian <qarIb>
          `close, kin' and its homophone <.garIb> `strange, alien'.
          Or the famous English examples such as _cleave_.

          Languages don't exactly love this kind of thing, but they
          can live with it. And when they do seek to eliminate it,
          they do so by replacing one of the conflicting lexical
          units by a synonym, not by irregular application of
          an otherwise regular sound shift.

          > Therefore the question is still valid - can sound changes
          > be blocked by semantic necessities in Quenya?

          I'll grant that such consideration might catalyse or inhibit
          an instance of a sound shift in a particular word in Quenya,
          provided that the irregularly derived word is still in line
          with the language's phonology, incl. phonotactics. However,
          when a sound is generally on its way out, its exceptional
          preservation in one or two words on semantic grounds is high
          on my list of things that just can't happen.

          > Can then the _d_ in _Aldudénië_ be written off
          > to disambiguation requirements?

          I think _Aldudénië_ has to be a misreading or a miswriting,
          or perhaps a word wrongly interpreted as Quenya.

          --
          <fa-al-_haylu wa-al-laylu wa-al-baydA'u ta`rifunI
          wa-as-sayfu wa-ar-rum.hu wa-al-qir.tAsu wa-al-qalamu>
          (Abu t-Tayyib Ahmad Ibn Hussayn al-Mutanabbi)
          Ivan A Derzhanski <http://www.math.bas.bg/ml/iad/>
          H: cplx Iztok bl 91, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria <iad@...>
          W: Dept for Math Lx, Inst for Maths & CompSci, Bulg Acad of Sciences
        • Pavel Iosad
          Hello, ... Fair point. As a matter of fact, these things can blend in other (Indo-European?) languages as well. In Russian, for example, the situation with
          Message 4 of 15 , Jun 1, 2002
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello,

            Carl wrote:

            > There is another factor to consider about the possible convergence
            > of these two particular roots. While "along side" and "against,
            > opposed to, opposite" may seem impossibly disparate in sense,
            > English itself shows a blending and blurring of these concepts.

            Fair point. As a matter of fact, these things can blend in other
            (Indo-European?) languages as well. In Russian, for example, the
            situation with 'fighting' is identical to the English. The question
            however reamins - would the two roots merge on the phonemic
            level or not? I would contend that it is possible that the two
            roots do remain asunder. We could try and reconstruct the
            earliest root as *AD-A with the meaning of 'adjunction', possibly.
            It would then show divergence in later Eldarin, mainly in the
            Vanyarin dialects. And we still don't know whether these could
            converge _back_ in Quenya (gues it is possible they wouldn't).
            Alternately, this could be a case of a hypothetic D/R variation,
            similar to the alternation of D/L, referred to in XI:363.

            But then, it's been a long time since I told myself not to build
            grandiose theories out if a single example! The above is pretty
            likely to be completely bogus :-)

            Pavel
            --
            Pavel Iosad pavel_iosad@...

            'I am a philologist, and thus a misunderstood man'
            --JRR Tolkien, _The Notion Club Papers_

            ---------------------------------------

            [Even if "completely bogus", it is thoughtfully constructed and
            raises interesting questions about language that are worthy of
            exploration. Carl]
          • Pavel Iosad
            Hello, Ivan wrote: (not that I am not convinced...) [...] ... I m no expert at Persian, but as regards the first two (actually three) examples, the syntactic
            Message 5 of 15 , Jun 1, 2002
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Hello,

              Ivan wrote:

              (not that I am not convinced...)

              [...]
              > > It doesn't seem likely that antonyms should be homonyms in a
              > > language (oh yes, there's Mandarin _míng[2]_ which means both
              > > 'bright' and 'dark', but still...).
              >
              > There's also Mandarin _guai1_ (1) `obedient, well-behaved';
              > (2) contrary, in spite of'. Or Russian _zadut'_ `blow out
              > (a candle); blow in (a blast-furnace)', _zalechit' `heal (a
              > wound); doctor (a patient) to death'. Or Persian <qarIb>
              > `close, kin' and its homophone <.garIb> `strange, alien'.

              I'm no expert at Persian, but as regards the first two (actually three)
              examples, the syntactic properties and/or context are sufficient to make
              clear which meaning is intended. As regards Quenya, clearly the
              distributive properties of the two will be identical (but hey, there's
              the case system which can be used for disambiguation after all!).

              > Or the famous English examples such as _cleave_.

              Again, there are the sytactic properties ('cleave to sth.' vs. 'cleave
              sth.')

              [...]
              OK, so we can establish that the two roots may have fallen together.
              Anyone has suggestions on which cases to use with which _*ara_?
              (Allative vs. Ablative? Dative vs. Ablative? Or something completely
              different?)

              [...]
              > I think _Aldudénië_ has to be a misreading or a miswriting,

              For what? :-))

              > or perhaps a word wrongly interpreted as Quenya.

              What is it then? Obviously not Telerin - no _*#g-_!

              Pavel
              --
              Pavel Iosad pavel_iosad@...

              'I am a philologist, and thus a misunderstood man'
              --JRR Tolkien, _The Notion Club Papers_
            • Pavel Iosad
              Hello All, ... Which leads us to the problem of a proper phonological analysis of Quenya. To wit: are the nasalised voiced stops /mb nd ñg/ single phonemes,
              Message 6 of 15 , Jun 7, 2002
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Hello All,

                Answering my question on Quenya intervocalic -d-'s, Ivan wrote:

                > The prime directive is: No /d/ in Quenya
                > except in the combinations /ld nd rd/ (LR:1155).

                Which leads us to the problem of a proper phonological analysis of
                Quenya. To wit: are the 'nasalised' voiced stops /mb nd ñg/ single
                phonemes, or biphonemic sequences?

                I hold it is the latter.

                But evidence is scanty, and I would like to discuss this question with a
                more knowledgeable company. So what would the assembly's opinion be,
                taking into account the following pieces of evidence:

                1) Consistent use of the word _combinations_ in Appendix E when
                referring to Grades 2 and 4 seems to argue that the sequence is
                biphonemic.

                2) These groups were clearly considered "long" for purposes of stress in
                early (and later) Sindarin, as per LR:1089 (it appears I am using a
                different edition than Ivan above). This would imply that in the
                structure of a word like _*periandath_ the _a_ in the penult qualifies
                as a vowel followed by two consonants, ergo /nd/ is biphonemic. This
                meets two objections - even early Sindarin is not Quenya (though I'd
                assume the phonological workings of the two would be exceptionally
                similar), and the second of a more fundamental nature. If we assume /nd/
                is monophonemic, the stress would still fall on the penult in this case,
                since /nd/ (be it mono- or biphonemic) is an impermissible onset, since
                no word in Quenya begins with it. On yet another hand, this latter
                argument could be taken as evidence for the biphonemic status of the
                group in question, as the restriction could then be explained in terms
                of the restriction on initial clusters in Quenya.

                3) There is little reason to distinguish /nd/ from /ld/ and /rd/. The
                latter are clearly biphonemic. It would then seem that a voiced stop is
                in a strong position when clustered with an alveolar sonorant. It is
                unclear whether /b/ shifted to /v/ after /l/ as a matter of some later
                dialect, or of a regular phonological process (since it appears that the
                Elves themselves did use _lb_ (LR:1095)). To clarify: /g/ shifted to a
                voiced /h/ regularly in Ukrainian and southern Russian dialects,
                however, there was no process of a regular voiced stop > homorganic
                voiced fricative shift. The only argument to see nasalisation as
                phonemically relevant attribute is its typological justification.
                Otherwise, we could as well argue that /ld/ is a phoneme while /nd/ and
                /rd/ are biphonemic. This doesn't seem likely at all

                4) However, there are clear cases of metathesis (e.g. in the past tense
                of basic verbs). A biphonemic sequence yielding a single phoneme is not
                at all impossible (cf. the conduct of Slavic *tj and *dj). Why would
                *_tek-ne_ yield *_tencë_? An answer might be positing not a metathesis
                (i.e. not the development of two sounds), but a nasalisation of the last
                consonant of a CVC- root as a phonological process a bit like the Irish
                attenuation and broadening (caolú and leathnú). Such an interpretation
                seems to be an argument for the monophonemic status.

                Overall, I still think the biphonemic interpretation is the better one,
                not the least because it is the less complex one. I am sure there is
                more to it than the outline above.

                Any comments?

                Pavel
                --
                Pavel Iosad pavel_iosad@...

                'I am a philologist, and thus a misunderstood man'
                --JRR Tolkien, _The Notion Club Papers_
              • Candon McLean
                ... They can only be biphonemic. The question is are they coarticulated or not? For example, Ladefoged ignores phonemes like [tS] and [d3] in the IPA, in
                Message 7 of 15 , Jun 7, 2002
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- Pavel Iosad <pavel_iosad@...> wrote:

                  > Which leads us to the problem of a proper phonological analysis of
                  > Quenya. To wit: are the 'nasalised' voiced stops /mb nd �g/ single
                  > phonemes, or biphonemic sequences?

                  They can only be biphonemic. The question is are they coarticulated
                  or not? For example, Ladefoged ignores "phonemes" like [tS] and [d3]
                  in the IPA, in fact they aren't in the IPA, because his phonetic work
                  has shown that they are two sounds that are coarticulated (see
                  Ladefoged _A Course in Phonetics_ 1975. 4th edition). Clusters like
                  [mb], found in some African languages etc., are also not in the IPA
                  because they are coarticulated.

                  I believe by phoneme you mean coarticulate and by biphonemic you mean
                  two independently articulated segments.

                  A crucial test (which may be beyond us) is to see if the cluster
                  splits into a coda and an onset:

                  e.g. /lambe/ > 1. [lam.be] or 2. [la.mbe].

                  If (1) then the cluster has two independently articualted segments;
                  if (2) then the cluster is coarticulated and thus a "phoneme."

                  An example from English is 'judging:' /d3Ud3 + Ing/ > [d3U.d3Ing],
                  where /ng/ = the sound ingma, i.e. the velar nasal. In the English
                  example it's clear that /d3/ is coarticulated as the sound does not
                  split across syllable boundaries.

                  I don't remember if Tolkien has given us discriptions of the
                  syllabification of these clusters. If he hasn't then we need to
                  listen again to his recordings (but these maybe inaccurate as he
                  wasn't a native speaker of Quenya, alas).

                  Candon


                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
                  http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
                • pavel_iosad
                  Hello, ... Evidence? :-) I do agree, but still... :-) ... As a matter of fact, I was referring to the phoneme as a unit of structural analysis (which And
                  Message 8 of 15 , Jun 7, 2002
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hello,
                    Candon wrote:
                    > > Which leads us to the problem of a proper phonological analysis
                    > > of Quenya. To wit: are the 'nasalised' voiced stops /mb nd ñg/
                    > > single phonemes, or biphonemic sequences?
                    >
                    > They can only be biphonemic.

                    Evidence? :-) I do agree, but still... :-)

                    > I believe by phoneme you mean coarticulate and by biphonemic you
                    > mean two independently articulated segments.

                    As a matter of fact, I was referring to the phoneme as a unit of
                    structural analysis (which And rejects, just don't beat me now :-))
                    and not as a segment in the speech.

                    > A crucial test (which may be beyond us) is to see if the cluster
                    > splits into a coda and an onset:
                    >
                    > e.g. /lambe/ > 1. [lam.be] or 2. [la.mbe].
                    >
                    > If (1) then the cluster has two independently articualted segments;
                    > if (2) then the cluster is coarticulated and thus a "phoneme."

                    I believe coarticulation in Quenya at least isn't the primary test,
                    as demonstrated by the fact that the Quenya _qu_, which was
                    pronounced as a cluster (in the Third Age at least), was still
                    permitted word-initially, demonstrating it was not a cluster
                    phonologically.

                    Besides, the syllabification test allows both interpretations, as
                    the whole of the /nd/ group obviously is included in the prceding
                    syllable, as per the Maximum Onset Principle. Quenya words do not
                    start in /d/, ergo /d/ is an impermissible onset. Ditto with /nd/,

                    Pavel
                    --
                    Pavel Iosad pavel_iosad@...

                    'I am a philologist, and thus a misunderstood man'
                    --JRR Tolkien, _The Notion Club Papers_
                  • Candon McLean
                    Hi, ... The evidence is in acoustic phonetics which shows overlapping wave-forms for sounds like [tS], i.e. [t] peaks and before its wave has ended [S] begins.
                    Message 9 of 15 , Jun 8, 2002
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi,

                      --- pavel_iosad <pavel_iosad@...> wrote:

                      >>> Which leads us to the problem of a proper phonological analysis
                      >>> of Quenya. To wit: are the 'nasalised' voiced stops /mb nd �g/
                      >>> single phonemes, or biphonemic sequences?

                      Candon wrote:
                      >> They can only be biphonemic.

                      Pavel wrote:
                      > Evidence? :-) I do agree, but still... :-)

                      The evidence is in acoustic phonetics which shows overlapping
                      wave-forms for sounds like [tS], i.e. [t] peaks and before its wave
                      has ended [S] begins.

                      I believe this work was started in the 50's and 60's at Edinburgh,
                      which perhaps means Tolkien was aware of it.

                      Candon wrote:
                      >> I believe by phoneme you mean coarticulated and by biphonemic you
                      >> mean two independently articulated segments.

                      Pavel wrote:
                      > As a matter of fact, I was referring to the phoneme as a unit of
                      > structural analysis (which And rejects, just don't beat me now :-))
                      > and not as a segment in the speech.

                      The acoustic analysis is clear that this isn't so, but for
                      convenience and a shorthand lable, perhaps we could call
                      coarticulated segments a phoneme (as long as we remember that they
                      are not).

                      Candon wrote:
                      >> A crucial test (which may be beyond us) is to see if the cluster
                      >> splits into a coda and an onset:
                      >> e.g. /lambe/ > 1. [lam.be] or 2. [la.mbe].
                      >> If (1) then the cluster has two independently articualted segments;
                      >> if (2) then the cluster is coarticulated and thus a "phoneme."

                      Pavel wrote:
                      > I believe coarticulation in Quenya at least isn't the primary test,
                      > as demonstrated by the fact that the Quenya _qu_, which was
                      > pronounced as a cluster (in the Third Age at least), was still
                      > permitted word-initially, demonstrating it was not a cluster
                      > phonologically.

                      I'm not sure I follow this. In English we have word initial /kw/ and
                      it is biphonemic. Quenya <qu> seems to be of the same sort.

                      Pavel wrote:
                      > Besides, the syllabification test allows both interpretations, as
                      > the whole of the /nd/ group obviously is included in the prceding
                      > syllable, as per the Maximum Onset Principle. Quenya words do not
                      > start in /d/, ergo /d/ is an impermissible onset. Ditto with /nd/,

                      I'm not sure it's obvious. It's true that Quenya only allows
                      palatalized or labialized consonant clusters word initially, but what
                      happens word internally isn't clear.

                      So, your claim is because /d/ is never an onset /nd/ will not split
                      word internally. I don't believe this _has_ to be true. But let's
                      say it is. What about the cluster /nt/? /t/ is allowed in onset
                      position. So the syllabification of a word like _tintalle_ > 1.
                      [tin.tal.le], or 2. [tint.al.le] will help us decide if clusters are
                      coarticulated or not.

                      Perhaps we can make an argument based on Tolkien's asthetic tastes to
                      help us decide. It's clear that Tolkien was interested in creating a
                      euphonic language. Which is the more euphonic syllabification of
                      Quenya _sinda_? 1. [sin.da] or 2. [sind.a] It seems clear to me
                      that (1) is more euphonic, and it is easier to articulate (the same
                      can be said of _tintalle_(1)above. Ease of articulation also seems
                      to have been important to Tolkien (cf. /n/ + /s/ > [ss] (e.g.
                      _Elessar_).

                      Notice also that when segments assimilate (for ease of
                      articulation) they don't disappear. This would indicate that both
                      segments [ss] in _Elessar_ are pronounced (as compared with
                      _*elesar_.

                      If both segments are indeed pronounced, this in turn seems to
                      indicate that the cluster is _not_ coarticulated as the best way to
                      make [ss] salient (i.e. perceivable) is to split the cluster [s.s]


                      If we don't have Tolkien's ideas on syllabification (and I haven't
                      had time to look into it), then his desire for euphony and ease of
                      articulation perhaps can shed some light on whether quenya clusters
                      are coarticulated, i.e. "phonemic," or not.

                      Candon

                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
                      http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
                    • pavel_iosad
                      Hello, I m still sceptical about acoustic evidence, nevertheless. Candon wrote: [...] ... But I was trying to find out exactly whether they are or are not! :-)
                      Message 10 of 15 , Jun 8, 2002
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hello,

                        I'm still sceptical about acoustic evidence, nevertheless.

                        Candon wrote:
                        [...]
                        > The acoustic analysis is clear that this isn't so, but for
                        > convenience and a shorthand lable, perhaps we could call
                        > coarticulated segments a phoneme (as long as we remember that they
                        > are not).

                        But I was trying to find out exactly whether they are or are not! :-)


                        > > I believe coarticulation in Quenya at least isn't the primary
                        > > test, as demonstrated by the fact that the Quenya _qu_, which
                        > > was pronounced as a cluster (in the Third Age at least), was
                        > > still permitted word-initially, demonstrating it was not a
                        > > cluster phonologically.
                        >
                        > I'm not sure I follow this. In English we have word initial /kw/
                        > and it is biphonemic. Quenya <qu> seems to be of the same sort.

                        Quenya doesn't allow initial clusters at all. Thus, _qu_, which is
                        permissible initially, is _not_ a cluster

                        > I'm not sure it's obvious. It's true that Quenya only allows
                        > palatalized or labialized consonant clusters word initially, but
                        > what happens word internally isn't clear.

                        I'd say that the palatalized and labilaized sounds are precisely
                        monophonemic.

                        > So, your claim is because /d/ is never an onset /nd/ will not split
                        > word internally. I don't believe this _has_ to be true. But let's
                        > say it is. What about the cluster /nt/? /t/ is allowed in onset
                        > position.

                        Good point, but it is obvious that the unvoiced stops have much
                        fewer phonotactical restrcitions imposed on them than the voiced
                        ones.

                        On the ohter hand, this example amply demonstrates that /mp nt ng/
                        are biphonemic sequences. This would mean that plosives
                        (phonemically) present a rather strange system /p/ ~ /b/ ~ /mb/.
                        Such a system is highly untypological. The only structurally
                        analogous situation I can think is the traditional PIE
                        reconstruction (substitute aspiration ofr nasalisation). But that
                        may precisely have been the inspiration! It would be "very
                        Tolkien" :-)

                        [...]
                        > If we don't have Tolkien's ideas on syllabification (and I haven't
                        > had time to look into it), then his desire for euphony and ease of
                        > articulation perhaps can shed some light on whether quenya clusters
                        > are coarticulated, i.e. "phonemic," or not.

                        Still, I do not see any direct correlation between coarticulation
                        and monopohnemic status.

                        But perhaps the better-learned ones here will clarify it for me...:-)

                        Pavel
                        --
                        Pavel Iosad pavel_iosad@...

                        'I am a philologist, and thus a misunderstood man'
                        --JRR Tolkien, _The Notion Club Papers_
                      • Ivan A Derzhanski
                        ... [...] ... [...] ... Acoustic phonetics is not about phonemes at all. Whatever sequence of wave forms the language treats as a phoneme is by virtue of that
                        Message 11 of 15 , Jun 8, 2002
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Candon McLean wrote:
                          > --- pavel_iosad <pavel_iosad@...> wrote:
                          > >>> are the 'nasalised' voiced stops /mb nd сg/
                          > >>> single phonemes, or biphonemic sequences?
                          [...]
                          > >> They can only be biphonemic.
                          [...]
                          > The evidence is in acoustic phonetics which shows overlapping
                          > wave-forms for sounds like [tS], i.e. [t] peaks and before
                          > its wave has ended [S] begins.

                          Acoustic phonetics is not about phonemes at all. Whatever sequence
                          of wave forms the language treats as a phoneme is by virtue of that
                          fact a phoneme.

                          > > I believe coarticulation in Quenya at least isn't the primary test,
                          > > as demonstrated by the fact that the Quenya _qu_, which was
                          > > pronounced as a cluster [...], was still permitted word-initially,
                          > > demonstrating it was not a cluster phonologically.
                          >
                          > I'm not sure I follow this. In English we have word initial /kw/
                          > and it is biphonemic. Quenya <qu> seems to be of the same sort.

                          English allows word-initial (and generally syllable-initial)
                          clusters. Quenya doesn't. So the evidence of English isn't
                          automatically relevant to Quenya.

                          > Pavel wrote:
                          > > Besides, the syllabification test allows both interpretations, as
                          > > the whole of the /nd/ group obviously is included in the prceding
                          > > syllable, as per the Maximum Onset Principle. Quenya words do not
                          > > start in /d/, ergo /d/ is an impermissible onset. Ditto with /nd/,
                          [...]
                          > So, your claim is because /d/ is never an onset /nd/ will not split
                          > word internally. I don't believe this _has_ to be true.

                          As a matter of fact, it does not. Think of Finnish medial /ht/.
                          It has to split as /h/+/t/, because a cluster can be neither an
                          onset nor a coda, but we have to live with the fact that /h/ can
                          be a coda of a non-final syllable (though not a final one).

                          --Ivan
                        • fr3dr1k_s
                          ... Few sounds in speech are *not* coarticulated in that sense. For example, by anticipatory coarticulation, /k/ has lip rounding in the word coo . The
                          Message 12 of 15 , Jun 8, 2002
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Candon McLean wrote:

                            >>> They can only be biphonemic.
                            >> Evidence? :-) I do agree, but still... :-)
                            >The evidence is in acoustic phonetics which shows
                            >overlapping wave-forms for sounds like [tS], i.e. [t] peaks and
                            >before its wave has ended [S] begins.

                            Few sounds in speech are *not* coarticulated in that sense. For
                            example, by anticipatory coarticulation, /k/ has lip rounding in the
                            word "coo". The labialized feature of the vowel is anticipated in
                            the realization of the velar stop, [k^w]. That would be an example
                            of coarticulation. But "biphonemic" of course refers to a
                            sequence of two phonemes. These phonemes may or may not
                            be further analysed into sequences of sounds on the phonetic
                            level, but that is irrelevant here. It is important to remember that
                            phonemes, while the smallest units of speech *phonologically*
                            speaking, are not necessarily "atomic" *phonetically* speaking
                            but may be broken down into smaller segments of sound.
                            Affricates are sequences of homorganic sounds on the phonetic
                            level that make up single units on the phonological level: they
                            are phonemes (no scare quotes). In his _Course in Phonetics_
                            earlier referred to, Ladefoged points out that "From the point of
                            view of a phonologist considering the sound patterns of English,
                            the palato-alveolar affricates are plainly single units" (3rd ed.,
                            63). I don't have the 4th ed. though.

                            Sorry if I missed your point and just reiterated the obvious.

                            /Fredrik Ström
                          • Candon McLean
                            Ivan and Fredrik both wrote that phonetic analysis isn t relevant to phonemes (or something similar to that effect). I agree. My mistake. Indeed sounds like
                            Message 13 of 15 , Jun 8, 2002
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Ivan and Fredrik both wrote that phonetic analysis isn't relevant to
                              phonemes (or something similar to that effect).

                              I agree. My mistake. Indeed sounds like [tS] are phonemes.

                              The point I was trying to make is that these kind of complex phonemes
                              with coarticulated sounds can't be split, and so if we wanted to test
                              whether Quenya clusters are phonemic or not, we should be able to do
                              so by focusing on the coarticulated properties of these sounds (like
                              affricates, etc).

                              Candon


                              __________________________________________________
                              Do You Yahoo!?
                              Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
                              http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
                            • anthonyappleyard
                              Apart from _Aldudenie_, what known instances of Quenya _d_ between vowels are known? If _Aldudenie_ is the only example, perhaps it is a stray mistake by
                              Message 14 of 15 , Jun 11, 2002
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Apart from _Aldudenie_, what known instances of Quenya _d_ between
                                vowels are known?

                                If _Aldudenie_ is the only example, perhaps it is a stray mistake by
                                Tolkien and if he had lived longer he would have found and corrected
                                it.

                                [It has been suggested many times before that _Aldudenie_, composed
                                by a Vanyarin elf, is a Vanyarin, not Quenya, title. Carl]
                              • Eleder
                                ... The best discussion I can remember about the possibility that *_-dénie_ was the Vanyarin cognate of Noldorin _nainie_, lament , is the #5885 message of
                                Message 15 of 15 , Jun 12, 2002
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  > [It has been suggested many times before that _Aldudenie_, composed
                                  > by a Vanyarin elf, is a Vanyarin, not Quenya, title. Carl]

                                  The best discussion I can remember about the possibility that *_-dénie_
                                  was the Vanyarin cognate of Noldorin _nainie_, "lament", is the #5885
                                  message of Elfling, by Ales Bican:

                                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling/message/5885

                                  As he said, it's hard to believe that it could be a typo by Tolkien,
                                  since the word _Aldudénie_ appears in different manuscripts and
                                  texts carefully revised by Tolkien.

                                  By the way, I introduce myself in this list, as member of the
                                  Lambenor Spanish-speaking mailing-list, and the Team of
                                  Languages of the Spanish Tolkien Society.

                                  ------
                                  Eleder

                                  "La fantasía se inocula en tu intelecto cual vacuna contra la sórdida
                                  subsistencia, cuando el aguijón de John Ronald Reuel Tolkien se
                                  inserta en los patológicos hemisferios cerebrales de todo lector que
                                  padezca el acierto de acceder a su terapéutica saga."
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.