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

Re: Tyelpetema and phonetics vs. phonology in Quenya

Expand Messages
  • Ales Bican
    ... **Er, did I miss something? As far as I know neither the perfect of _lelya-_ (did you mean _auta-_?) nor the present tense of _lanta-_ (I suppose you mean
    Message 1 of 22 , Mar 2, 2003
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Pavel Iosad wrote:

      > Ales Bican wrote:
      >
      > >**First of all, I think there is no published writing of Tolkien's
      > >where he would state Quenya does not permit, to simplify it, long
      > >vowels before consonant clusters. Or course, I may be wrong, so
      > >correct me.
      >
      > Indeed you are correct. Nevertheless the lack of vowel lengthening in
      > the perfect of _lelya-_, which exhibits nasal infixion, or in the
      > present tense of verbs like _lanta_- shows that this shortening in
      > closed syllables is regularly forced by the phonotactics.

      **Er, did I miss something? As far as I know neither the perfect of
      _lelya-_ (did you mean _auta-_?) nor the present tense of _lanta-_
      (I suppose you mean the continuous form as opposed to the aorist)
      is attested -- or am I wrong? What do you mean?

      > It would nicely be described by a generative-style phonology, where the
      > morphological module would give a form like _lántar_, and the 'phonology
      > proper' module would then give the actual output _lantar_).

      **I see: you mean that _lantar_ in Namárie is the present tense form?
      This is possible, though I do not think so. (However, I agree that it
      might have be an instance of the present tense in the stage of
      Q(u)enya when the aorist was a past tense with the perfective
      aspect.)

      Nevertheless, there is a form which may show that the stem-vowel
      is not shortened if preceded by _nt_: it is the preterite _lantie_
      "fell" (be it either the past tense or perfect; LR:56).

      > > [_aista-_ 'to dread' (V:358) -- PHW]
      >
      > Also _aistana_ 'blessed' in AM, and _aista-_ in _Alcar i Ataren_.

      **This is what I meant because this occurence of _aista-_ is compatible
      with _onye_ and _olye_ I mentioned. Anyway, since Helge Fauskanger
      published his wordlists (for which I think we should be very grateful,
      because it helps the scholarship), I wonder whether it is necessary
      to give always pages for each and every single word.

      [It is on this list, at least for words not cited from such well-known contexts
      as Galadriel's Lament, etc. CFH]

      > This may have to do with etymology, since *_aistana_, the editors inform
      > us, can be connected with an old base like GAYA(S)- (VT43:38), which
      > gives a formation like _*(g)aiastanâ_. Now the syncope of the second _a_
      > is a bit hard to explain, it being in a long syllable.

      **I do not think this was the form, because the syncope would not only
      be hard to explain but probably even impossible. I think _aista-_ was
      derived from *_(g)ais-tâ_, as the primitive form _gais-_ under the
      entry GÁYAS- in Etym suggests.

      > >And the same can be applied to other Cy combinations:
      >
      > This is true, and in fact, can be used as an argument for my
      > interpretation. If we consider the _my_ palatalized (which we apparently
      > agree upon), it does mean that palatalization is a phonemically relevant
      > feature.

      **I am not sure if we mean the same thing, so I will specify it:
      personally, I think _my_ in _lamya_ does not stand for a single
      sound (phoneme) but a sequence of two sounds (phonemes), the latter
      being [j]. If the _m_ is palatalized I cannot say, but if it is,
      then it is palatalized syntagmatically, that is to say, the
      palatalization is caused by the following [j]. In my opinion,
      _my_ might be either [mj] or [m'j] phonetically, but it is /mj/
      phonologically.

      > > it is hard to say whether _ry_ in
      > >_máryat_ stands for [R] (palatal _r_, I will use capitals for palatals)
      > > or [r'] or [rj] (resp. [r'j]).
      >
      > In the official IPA table (cf., for instance,
      > http://www2.arts.gla.ac.uk/IPA/fullchart.html; this one is quite in
      > accord with the latest version of the IPA handbook I have access to),
      > palatal taps/flaps or trills are not shaded (which means the
      > articulation is considered possible), but do not have a symbol assigned,
      > which means that no described languages has a phonemic sound of those
      > types.

      **Yes, I am aware of the fact it is not shaded, but I do think that if
      there is no sign for it means it does not exist in described languages.
      There is no sign for Czech _r-hacek_, either.

      > >With this are connected what I would call primary and secondary Cy
      > >combinations. Primary Cy combinations are those that existed from
      > >Primitive Quendian (resp. Common Eldarin). They occur exclusively
      > >word-initially.
      >
      > That isn't as obvious. Apparently you mean that certain word-initial
      > consonants were palatalized, but then your use of 'combinations' is
      > somewhat misleading.

      **I realize I did not make myself clear, which leads to confusion.
      Sorry. By the Cy combination I meant the way Tolkien transribed
      his languages -- I meant graphemes but not phonemes. Such a Cy
      combination may stand for different things on the phonological level.
      For instance, I think the Cy combination in _tyálie_ stands for /T/
      (sc. a voiceless palatal stop), which the Cy combination in, say,
      _lamya_ stands for /mj/.

      Now by the primary Cy combinations I meant cases where it stood
      for one phoneme; the secondary ones stood for sequences of C + /j/.

      > Combinations of C+_j_ were clearly present on the
      > CE level, since medial combinations of this kind consistently turn out
      > as tyelpetéma-consonants in Quenya, but also cause i-affection in
      > Sindarin.

      **Yes, this is what I mean by the secondary Cy combinations: they
      arose from the contact of two mophemes in derivational processes
      of the Elvish language.

      > > What we do not
      > > know is whether e.g. _n + y_ in _vanya_ produced [N] or [n'j]/[nj].
      >
      > Indeed. That is what the whole problem hinges on, anyway.

      **Definitely!

      > > I think I mentioned it in earlier posts: (a) in VT42:27 Tolkien
      > > mentioned that "_atatya_ remained [unreduced] because the second _a_
      > > was not syncopated, being in a long syllable";

      [...]

      > Syncope, for instance, is driven phonetically. From a phonological (here
      > phonotactical) point of view, there is nothing inherently wrong with
      > three consecutive syllables sharing a similar nucleus, phonetics
      > however, aiming at easing of articulation, is the driving force behind
      > the simplification of the 'redundant' elements. Since this is a phonetic
      > rather than a phonological phenomenon, we should consider the _ty_ as a
      > phonetic unit. According to my suggestion, _ty_ is *phonetically*
      > bimoraic, and therefore the second syllable of _atatya_ is indeed
      > closed.

      **While I agree with this, I still ask why we have _onye_, _olye_ but
      _máryat_.

      > (As a rather important aside, I have quite forgotten to explain how, in
      > my theory, the syllable boundary splits the [t_j] and the [j] if they
      > are permissible word-initially. It is possible to suggest that
      > bisegmental sequences are forbidden on both the phonetical and the
      > phonological levels, so word-initially the _ty_'s and sundry could be
      > pronounced without the glide owing to these constraints, but with it
      > intervocalically. In post-pausal position, as after the nasals, it would
      > of course be also pronounced in a single segment, but this does not
      > create a lot of problems with regard to syllable division, since the
      > preceding syllable would be closed anyway)

      **Although this sounds likely and might be true, especially what regards
      the _nCy_ sequences, I do not dare to combine all Cy combinations --
      I mean I am not quite convinced that, say, _ty_ in _tyálie_ in the same
      thing as _ty_ in _atatya_. At least _ny_ in _nyello_ is hardly the same
      thing _ny_ in _enyalie_ (Cirion's Oath) -- I would say.

      > >Another thing must also be mentioned. Quenya does not like sequences
      > >of consonants much and if there is a sequence, it does not consist
      > >of more than two members. In other words, we do not see combinations
      > >of three and more consonants in Quenya. Nevertheless, we see
      > >combinations CCy: _nty_, _ndy_, _rty_ (_lty_ not attested), _sty_,
      > >and _hty_.
      >
      > Which further suggests that they are phonologically single, as Ales
      > notes.

      **Only if we assume that Quenya does not allow sequences of three
      consonantal phonemes.

      [...]

      > After all, it must be noted that the mere fact of the phonologically
      > irregular stress in _hiruvalye_ points that the form is marked,
      > otherwise its formation would be blocked by a rule higher on the
      > hierarchy (i. e. more marked)

      **As David Kiltz already noted, the stress is not irregular if _ly_
      here stands for /lj/, which I think is the case as is also suggested
      by _olye_. But what about _máryat_?

      > [...]
      > >**In other words, an initial _d_ is not found (though _Aldudénie_ might
      > >be an example of this under certain assumptions), which does not
      > >necessarily mean it is forbidden.
      >
      > But cf. L[R]:1094-5,

      **Where? Ok, just kidding, I know what you mean, because I am
      familiar with the phrase. Even if I did not, I am lucky to have the
      same edition of LotR, though other people may not be as lucky.

      [It is not a question of "luck"; the one-volume edition is (for now) the most
      authoritative, and is therefore the one that all _scholars_ should reference. CFH]

      > where the phrase definitely says that the /b g gw/
      > were only met in conjunction with the nasals, and /d/, from the turn of
      > the phrase, is only met after /n l r/.

      **You are right.

      > (There's also Christopher's
      > apparent slip in UT, where he gives the name of a Númenórean city as
      > _Almaida_, it should apparently be #_Almalda_)

      **Can you tell me where, I did not find in the index? And please, avoid
      giving page numbers, as I may not be so lucky this time.

      [It's at UT:7; Christopher Tolkien does note there that the name is hard to read.
      Ales, you know the policy of this list, and the reasons for it. You don't have to like
      it, or agree with it, but you do have to follow it if you want to participate in this
      forum. I also won't have you discouraging others from acting in a scholarly
      manner. CFH]

      > > One would be inclined to say that
      > > a medial _ky_ is not permitted if _Erukyerme_ (UT) and _Ekyanáro_
      > > (VT41:14) were not attested.
      >
      > By the way, if you asked me, I'd give these as probable candidates for
      > palatal rather than palatalized stops;

      **If the _ky_ combination stands here for one phoneme, then I think
      it is a voiceless palato-velar stop, the same sound that is
      reconstructed for Indo-European (if I am not mistaken). However, if
      the _ky_ stands for two phonemes, it is most likely /k/ + /j/.
      _Erukyerme_ might be an example of the former, _Ekyanáro_ of the
      latter.

      > the articulatory mecanism is the
      > same as behind the palatal status of _hy_, for which see my original
      > post. If we suggest that _ty_ is palatal, then these are just
      > alternative orthographies, if it is palatalized, Quenya falls into the
      > Macedonian category. A third possibility is that _ky_ is an alternative
      > orthography for palatalized _ty_, but this is unlikely.

      **As I suggested, I still need more phonetic training, but as far as I
      undertand _ky_ as a palato-velar and _ty_ as a palatal (palato-dental)
      are different sounds.

      [_tyelpetéma_ palatal or palatalized:]

      > The distinction between 'palatal' and 'palatalized' can be blurry,
      > especially for one who isn't deep into synchronic phonology. Tolkien
      > surely knew about it, but it wasn't his primary area of interest (which
      > is probably why we seldom get any coherent synchronic picture of
      > Tolkien's invented languages - it doesn't possess an independent value
      > for Tolkien, and is justified by writing poetry, cf. the passage in 'The
      > Secret Vice'). If _ty_ were palatal, it is difficult to justify why
      > Tolkien described it as 'similar to English _t_ in _tune_' (L:1088)',
      > since the sound is not palatal (but rather, in British speech,
      > pronounced with a glide!).

      **That is not surprising for me at all. The book was written for English
      readers, Tolkien could not suppose that they would know other
      languages than English. Neither of the most commonly taught languages
      (i.e. French, Spanish, German) have a palatal _t_. In fact, which
      European languages besides Czech, Slovak and Hungarian have it?
      The example of 'tune' was probably the one Tolkien could use (not
      to mention that he wrote it was "probably similar", which can mean
      anything).

      > Also he might have included the Spanish ñ as
      > a description of NY in the Appendix (though this is of no value as an
      > argument)

      **Am I blind or Tolkien did not give any hint how NY should be
      pronounced? I have not realized it until now. As a matter of fact,
      he did not mention LY and RY, either. If these combinations stands
      for palatal _l_ and _r_ respectively, why was it not mentioned?

      > > It is also supposed to have existed in old
      > > Czech (as a reflex of _rj_), but this does not mean anything.
      >
      > That is rather off-topic, but that is somewhat strained to me. As I
      > understand, the transition from palatalized [r] to the Czech r-haczek
      > (coarticulated [r] and [Z] as in 'pleasure') only implies the addition
      > of the fricative character and removal of the flap, and does not
      > necessarily imply a back-and-forth place of articulation shift.

      **To quote a "classic": "Many foreigners perceive Czech _r-hacek_,
      an absolutely homogeneous sound, as the sound sequences _rZ_.
      [...] In reality _r-hacek_ is only an _r_ with less amplitude in
      vibration of the tip of the tongue, so that a frictionlike noise
      resembling an _Z_ is audible between the trills of the _r_."
      (Trubetzkoy, _Principles of Phonology_).

      > >> I would suggest that _ly_, being palatalized,
      >
      > >**I think it is a palatal, being distinct to a palatalized _l_, which
      > >occured between _e, i_ and a consonant, cf. App. E s.v. L: "[_l_] was,
      > >however, to some degree 'palatalized' between _e, i_ and a consonant,
      > >or finally after _e, i_".
      >
      > The part about 'to some degree' worries me a lot. I don't know much
      > about degrees of palatalization in European languages (since the Russian
      > non-palatalized [l] is heavily velarized, which interferes a lot), but
      > it seems possible that the palatalization distinction could possess
      > three grades.

      **At any rate, this to-some-degree-palatalized _l_ must still be
      phonologically regarded as /l/, because this palatalization is
      a syntagmatic assimilation of [l] to immediate _e, i_. The palatal
      _l_, if existing in the language, is not depended on the phonetic
      environment.

      > >> Now if _ry_ is a single consonant (it apparently is *phonologically*),
      >
      > >**I do not think it is obvious.
      >
      > I never said it was obvious. This situation is difficult to resolve
      > (just as in natural languages), since not one of the two tests
      > applicable to Quenya (whether the consonant makes a syllable closed;
      > whether it can be word/syllable-initial) is not applicable to the sound
      > in question - the first test is what we are discussing, the second one
      > is inapplicable in case of word-initial [ry] because there's just no
      > possible etymology for an initial [ry] (unless a RY-root is found), in
      > case of internal syllable-initial because the first element of a cluster
      > is either a nasal or a spirant fricative, both of which tend to
      > assimilate with [r] and blur the distinctions.

      **Let me know that any LY-root is not found, either. _lyenna_
      cannot, in my opinion, be regarded as a "normal" form. It is
      noteworthy that DY, the most likely candidate for the origin of
      a word-initial _ly_, did not become _ly_ (as it did word-medially)
      but instead it lost its occusive component and retained its palatal
      one, becoming _y_. This can suggest that _ly_ is not monophonematic.
      On the other hand, the "d" component is often lost, as _Quendya_
      > _Quenya_ shows.


      Ales Bican

      --
      kurvannapi vyalíkáni yah. priyah. priya eva sah.
      anekadós.adus.t.ó 'pi káyah. kasya na vallabhah.
    • Ales Bican
      ... **I may not understand you and perhaps the confusion was caused by my failure to explain precisely what I meant the by Cy combinations. At any rate I would
      Message 2 of 22 , Mar 2, 2003
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        David Kiltz wrote:

        > [...]As phonetics tell us, a syllable ideally starts with a higher degree
        > of
        > consonanticity followed by a sound with a lower value. A somewhat
        > simplified consonanticity hierarchy may look like this: Occlusives >
        > Spirants (Sibilants, s having a special status) > Nasals > L,R >
        > "half-vowels". We may call these sounds then class 1,2,3,4, and 5.
        > Word-initially Quenya seems to allow for the following combinations:
        > 1 + 5 (cf. _tyulusse, tyálie_),
        > 2 + 5 (cf. _hyarin_ < SWAR-. As "h" probably represents [ç] here, it
        > should be treated as a spirant which, historically, it certainly is.),
        > 3 + 5 (cf. _nyello_),
        > 4 + 5 (doubtful, _lyenna_ ?).
        > -Note: For completness a class 6 (vowels) belongs here. It has been
        > left out for obvious reasons. Any class + 6 would work.-

        **I may not understand you and perhaps the confusion was caused by
        my failure to explain precisely what I meant the by Cy combinations.
        At any rate I would not call what you describe here combinations
        (except for any class + 6, which are combinations of C + V). Although
        we see here two graphemes (_ty_, _hy_, _ny_; _ly_ is doubtful), I am
        convinced these _graphemic_ combinations stand for single phonemes.
        So for instance, the case of _tyálie_ is not, in my view, an instance
        of 1 + 5 (i.e. occlusive plus semivowel _y_), but just 1 (+ 6, the vowel
        _á_), as palatals would belong to the same class with occlusives.

        > Adding to this, PQ allows for the following additional combinations: s
        > + 1, 3, 4, 5. (Abundant examples can be found in V, "The Etymologies".

        **I think the situation in PQ was not much different. What is
        transcribed as Cy (on _sy_ see below) does not stand for two phonemes
        but for just one, I think. Basically, PQ does not allow any other
        phonemic combinations than sC if graphemic combinations Cy are
        monophonematic (on nasal + stop see below).

        > Of course, certain combinations within these classes do not occur, e.g.
        > p+y. This is most probably due to euphonic reasons.

        **While the reasons can certainly be euphonic on Tolkien's side,
        I think the reason why there is nothing like _p+y_ is still because
        the word-initial graphemic Cy combinations stand for one phoneme,
        not a combination of phonemes.

        PQ had three basic series of localization: labial, dental and velar.
        The dental series was split into two related series: plain dentals
        and palato-dentals. The velar series was split to three related
        series: plain velars, palato-velars and labio-velars. Each series
        had a voiceless occlusive, voiced occlusive, nasal and some of
        them voiceless aspirated occlusives. So:

        labials: P, B, M, Ph
        plain dentals: T, D, N, Th
        palato-dentals: Ty, Dy, Ny (Thy not found)
        plain velars: K, G, Ñ, Kh
        palato-velars: Ky, Gy, (Ñy not found), Khy
        labio-velars: Kw, Gw, (Ñw, Khw not found)

        The rest, i.e. S, 3, R, L, Y and W stood outside this system. Then
        there are combinations nasal + voiced occlusive (such as _mb_)
        which may be evaluated as monophonematic (if so, they are not
        found in palato-dentals, sc. no _ndy_ word-initially) but it is
        not certain. I will return to them.

        This system was reduced in noninitial positions in the root
        (syllable): for instance, while we see aspirates on the coda
        of a PQ syllable (e.g. KHITH), we do not see there any palatals.

        > Given the attested Quenya words, I will argue that Quenya in principle
        > honours the biphonemic rule but may, under certain historical
        > circumstances, allow for a different syllabification.
        > Case 1) The obvious instance where e.g. _ty_ is primary and hence
        > monophonemic. Cf. _intya-_.
        > Case 2) _máryat_. In my view this is not a violation of the biphonemic
        > rule but has to be syllabified as má (<ma3-) +ryat. The division is
        > due to morphological reasons and is phonetically permissible since a
        > syllable-initial cluster "ry" is in accord with the consonanticity
        > hierarchy for syllable-onsets outlined above.

        **As I have already noted, the _onye_ example does not seem to be
        compatible with _máryat_. Something similar may be with _ohlon_:
        why is it not *_óhlon_, _hl_ being a single phoneme which implies
        from the fact it occurs word-initially?

        > Now for the case of _aistana-_.
        >
        > In "The Etymologies" one can see that PQ (or PE) allowed for a wide
        > range of s + C clusters initially.

        [the excursus snipped]

        > The special behaviour of "s" that can be seen e.g. in Indo-European
        > also seems to feature in PQ (PE). As I argued in the case of _máryat_,
        > Quenya seems to allow certain PQaic clusters at the onset of a syllable
        > which it has otherwise simplified word-initially.
        > Hence, I would suggest that this is the case for "st", too.
        > _Aistana-_ is therefore to be syllabified as _ai-stana_.

        **There may be another explanation of _aista-_. Although it was me
        who mentioned the form _aista-_, I cannot remember any other example
        of a diphthong before a consonant cluster. If it is an isolated
        example, then it might be an exception.

        As the entry in Etym suggest, the form _aista-_ was derived from was
        _gais-_. Since the base does not appear to be verbal and there was a
        need for a verbal derivative, the Elvish language did not have a lot
        of possibilities than to suffix a verbalizer. While there are a number
        of verbalizers, the formant _-ta_ was chosen. This suffixion caused
        that now there was a diphthong (a two-moraic unit) before a consonant
        cluster. I think it would have normally led to reduction (change) of
        the diphthong to _e_ (as in _Melkor_ < *_Mailkó_ < _Mailikó_, Etym s.v.
        MIL-IK), but this change would have confused the original base GAYAS
        with a distinct base ES-, because the form would then have been *_esta-_
        (_esta-_ "to name"). In order to preserve the relationship with the
        base GAYAS, the change may not have happened. In case of _aistana_,
        the relationship was perhaps more desired to be retained because of
        the words such as _aire_.

        As regards _Hrísto_, this is a doubtful example, because Tolkien
        change it to _Hristo_ immediately.

        * * *

        Pavel Iosad then replied to David's letter mentioning:

        > Now there is also the question of what to allow as initial PQ clusters.
        > There is no compelling need to suggest initial /MB ND ÑG/ are single
        > phonemes in PQ. The African languages where such consonants are viewed
        > as single phonemes do not allow any other initial clusters, which is not
        > the case in PQ.

        David replied:

        > MB, ND, ÑG, (ÑGw) are described as the corresponding nasals to
        > parmatéma, tincotéma, calmatéma, and quessetéma. I think they are to be
        > understood as monophonemic. The African example is not compelling.
        > While the lack of initial clusters in those languages points to the
        > fact that MB etc. aren't as well, in those languages, the reverse is
        > not necessarily true. Just because PQ has some initial clusters, MB
        > etc. don't have to be too.

        **I think it is possible to evaluate MB, ND, NG, NGy and NGw (NDy
        missing) as monophonematic, even though as David notes PQ had some
        initial clusters. However, the first component in these clusters
        (as far as I know) was always /s/. We have these: SK, SL, SM, SN,
        SP, ST, SW and SY + SR from a non-Etym source. In other words,
        S is always combined with voiceless (plain) occlusives P, T and K,
        nasals M and N (SÑ not found), liquids L and R, and semivowels Y
        and W. Since there does not seem to be other initial clusters
        (GR, GL, DR being late PQ/Sindarin variations of R and L, see
        WJ:411 and VT39:11), we could perhaps evaluate these combinations
        as monophonematic.

        Above I tried to describe the phonologic system of PQ. The system
        was practically the same as the system of Eldarin at the Qenya
        stage (Eldarin being an ancestor of Qenya, PE12:15). The most
        significant difference was the presence of spirants in all series
        of localization, i.e. something that is not found in PQ. The role
        of spirants was taken up by aspirates. Another difference is that
        the Eldarin system did not have palato-velar, it had only palato-
        dental or just palatals.

        Now all series of localization (q-, k-, c-, t- and p-like) had
        several "degrees": voiceless explosive, voices explosives, voiceless
        spirants, voiced spirants, nasal and the last "degree" was
        _nasalized explosive_. This of course may mean that these nasalized
        explosives were monophonematic in Eldarin, though there may represent
        two sounds phonetically, because Tolkien apparently used a bow over
        a graphemic combination if it stood for a single sound, which is
        not the case of the nasalized explosives.

        What was the situation in the Etym Quenya is not certain. Another
        important thing to mention is that the nasalized stops behaved
        variously: sometimes they were reduced to either plain nasals
        (in Quenya, e.g. MB > M) or plain stops (in Sindarin, MB > B),
        but sometimes the nasal became syllabic: e.g. MBARAT > Q _umbar_.
        This rises a question whether stems like MBAR were dissyllabic
        or monosyllabic. Phonetically according to the sonority scale
        they should be dissyllabic. Phonologically, however, they seem
        to be monosyllabic.

        Now I am eager to hear your opinions, I am sure I overlooked
        or misunderstood several things.


        Ales Bican

        ps. For more on the PQ bases and syllabic sonorants in PQ
        see Helge Fauskanger's article _Primitive Elvish_

        http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/primelv.htm

        and David Salo's Elfling post _Qenya -> Quenya; vocalized
        sonorants_ from Oct, 8th, 2000

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling/message/3516

        [Not to mention, Tolkien's own Qenya Phonology, in PE12. CFH]

        --
        kurvannapi vyalíkáni yah. priyah. priya eva sah.
        anekadós.adus.t.ó 'pi káyah. kasya na vallabhah.
      • David Kiltz
        ... Seems you understood me right. There was no confusion. I simply think that _ty_, _hy_, _ny_, _ly_ are combinations of C+y. ... I beg to differ (v.s.). ...
        Message 3 of 22 , Mar 3, 2003
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          On Sonntag, März 2, 2003, at 09:34 Uhr, Ales Bican wrote:

          > **I may not understand you and perhaps the confusion was caused by
          > my failure to explain precisely what I meant the by Cy combinations.
          > <...>). Although we see here two graphemes (_ty_, _hy_, _ny_; _ly_ is
          > doubtful), I am convinced these _graphemic_ combinations stand for
          > single phonemes.

          Seems you understood me right. There was no confusion. I simply think
          that _ty_, _hy_, _ny_, _ly_ are combinations of C+y.

          > Basically, PQ does not allow any other phonemic combinations than
          > sC if graphemic combinations Cy are monophonematic (on nasal +
          > stop see below).

          I beg to differ (v.s.).

          > I think the reason why there is nothing like _p+y_ is still because
          > the word-initial graphemic Cy combinations stand for one phoneme,
          > not a combination of phonemes.

          I don't see the causality here. Even *if* the instances of Cy are
          monophonemic, how would that preclude a combination _py_ (being also
          monophonemic). Do you think a palatalized _p_ is a priori impossible ?
          If it's not, the reason for its non-occurence is euphonic, either way.

          **Ales gives the inventory of PQ, including:

          > palato-dentals: Ty, Dy, Ny (Thy not found)

          In my view there is no palato-dental series.

          >> Case 2) _máryat_. In my view this is not a violation of the biphonemic
          >> rule but has to be syllabified as má (<ma3-) +ryat. The division is
          >> due to morphological reasons and is phonetically permissible since a
          >> syllable-initial cluster "ry" is in accord with the consonanticity
          >> hierarchy for syllable-onsets outlined above.
          >
          > **As I have already noted, the _onye_ example does not seem to be
          > compatible with _máryat_. Something similar may be with _ohlon_:
          > why is it not *_óhlon_, _hl_ being a single phoneme which implies
          > from the fact it occurs word-initially?

          Indeed, _onye_ and _ohlon_ seem to contradict what I said about
          _máryat_. However, if we look very closely, the cases aren't exactly
          the same. _Má_ is a full blown noun whereas _ó_ is a preposition.
          _Ohlon_ is a new word. Also, inflected prepositions tend to be viewed
          as one word as the developments of such inflections in e.g. Welsh and
          Irish show. With _máryat_, the situation is different. Note that the
          _á_ of _máryat_ is indeed shortened when combined with a derivational
          element yielding a whole new word, cf: _-maite_.

          >> As I argued in the case of _máryat_, Quenya seems to allow certain
          >> PQaic clusters at the onset of a syllable which it has otherwise simplified
          >> word-initially. Hence, I would suggest that this is the case for "st", too.
          >> _Aistana-_ is therefore to be syllabified as _ai-stana_.

          Ales notes _aista_ may be an exception and continues:

          > As the entry in Etym suggest, the form _aista-_ was derived from was
          > _gais-_. <...>, the formant _-ta_ was chosen. This suffixion caused
          > that now there was a diphthong (a two-moraic unit) before a consonant
          > cluster. I think it would have normally led to reduction (change) of
          > the diphthong to _e_ (as in _Melkor_ < *_Mailkó_ < _Mailikó_, Etym s.v.
          > MIL-IK), but this change would have confused the original base GAYAS
          > with a distinct base ES-, because the form would then have been *_esta-_
          > (_esta-_ "to name"). In order to preserve the relationship with the
          > base GAYAS, the change may not have happened. In case of _aistana_,
          > the relationship was perhaps more desired to be retained because of
          > the words such as _aire_.

          *Maybe* an irregular soundshape was retained. But that seems highly
          unusual. In all instance of homophony that Tolkien notes, the words
          fall out of use.

          > As regards _Hrísto_, this is a doubtful example, because Tolkien
          > change it to _Hristo_ immediately.

          Which may be indicative and may not. The Greek _i_ is also short. (Note
          that _hr_ here stands by all likelihood for two sounds, representing
          Greek "chi+rho". If _hr_ was indeed monophonemic, why would it have
          been chosen over simple _r_ or e.g. _kr_. Do you think that _hr_
          represents another sound than it does normally in Quenya ?).

          > **I think it is possible to evaluate MB, ND, NG, NGy and NGw (NDy
          > missing) as monophonematic, <...>
          > Another important thing to mention is that the nasalized stops behaved
          > variously: sometimes they were reduced to either plain nasals
          > (in Quenya, e.g. MB > M) or plain stops (in Sindarin, MB > B),
          > but sometimes the nasal became syllabic: e.g. MBARAT > Q _umbar_.
          > This r[a]ises a question whether stems like MBAR were dissyllabic
          > or monosyllabic. Phonetically according to the sonority scale
          > they should be dissyllabic. Phonologically, however, they seem
          > to be monosyllabic.

          I agree with you in your assessment of _MB_ etc. as monophonemic. Your
          last sentence, however, I think is wrong. In my opinion, there is no
          phonetic/phonological contradiction here. If _MBAR_ is indeed
          monosyllabic it also is phonetically so. Because there is no scale
          then. _MB_ has óne pitch, then. We are dealing with prenasalized stops
          here, I'd say. _umbar_ may well not be a case of a syllabic _m_ but
          actually *_ú-mbar_ "ill fate".

          David Kiltz

          (Unfortunately I'm unable to access two of the sources mentioned by
          Ales an Carl: David Salo's post and PE 12 (as well as 11).
        • Pavel Iosad
          [PLEASE be sure to indicate clearly and accurately to whom you are responding in your posts! CFH] [David Kiltz wrote:] ... Well, yes. (I agree, anyway) Though
          Message 4 of 22 , Mar 6, 2003
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            [PLEASE be sure to indicate clearly and accurately to whom you are
            responding in your posts! CFH]

            [David Kiltz wrote:]

            > Rather my argument is that the hierarchy can be "violated" by
            > groups of the kind "sC-". Or, in other terms, that "s", for some
            > reason, does not violate the rule. It is sort of a "moot" consonant
            > That's what the examples from PIE where meant to illustrate. I would
            > posit such a behaviour for PQ as well.

            Well, yes. (I agree, anyway) Though one would still wonder what gives it
            the special status, since 's' is less consonantic than the stops. In
            PIE, that's apparently its status as the only fricative. I'd hazard a
            guess that is also the case for PQ.

            > Okay, yet Quenya seems to try to avoid a cluster onset CR-
            > (as it does in anlaut).

            Exactly. With st-, however, it avoids the thing in anlaut but not in
            inlaut.

            > I do maintain, however, that sC- *is* a special case. We do
            > not have a **_aitsana_. Also, there is no case of s+t > t+s that I'm aware of.

            Yes, though _sk_ > _ks_ is present (irregularly):

            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lambengolmor/message/58
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lambengolmor/message/59

            > > That is true. I am however yet to see an argument that MB and sundry
            > > ARE monophonemic in PQ.
            >
            > Okay. Nevertheless, pre-nasalized stops are a breed of their own. Their
            > behaviour in PQ would certainly merit a separate investigation.

            Yes.

            > Well, I don't know about semiotically.

            [unmarked] - [marked by contrast 1] - [marked by contrast 1][marked by
            contrast 2] (t-d-dh) is strange. A system like [unmarked] - [marked by
            contrast 1] - [marked by contrast 2] (p-b-ph) is extremely widespread
            and more concise (and caters for better transmision of distinctions).

            > Tolkien's PE (and PQ) phonology
            > largely differs from PIE. It is more similar to Proto Finno-Ugric I'd
            > say. I cannot say whether Tolkien "liked" the traditional
            > reconstruction in terms of lámatyáve. Any clues to suggest either way?

            None. That's why I say it *can* be an argument.

            > Be that as it may, let it just be said that the traditional
            > reconstruction of the PIE consonant system is also typologically
            > problematic. Also, DH doesn't figure in Elvish.

            Substitute [+ nasalized] for [+aspirated] and you get it.

            > > So are you suggesting that the syllable boundary shifts to immediately
            > > after a vowel only if the vowel is long?
            >
            > Exactly.

            OK. So are you suggesting that the mono- or biphonemic realization of
            the _Cy_'s depends on whether the vowel before them is short or long?


            Pavel
            --
            Pavel Iosad pavel_iosad@...

            Is mall a mharcaicheas am fear a bheachdaicheas
            --Scottish proverb
          • Pavel Iosad
            Hello, ... I was referring to IX:56, where the forms _lendien_ and _nilendie_ occur, and they are to be compared with the first edition s _vánier_, as well
            Message 5 of 22 , Mar 6, 2003
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Hello,

              Ales Bican wrote:

              > **Er, did I miss something? As far as I know neither the perfect of
              > _lelya-_ (did you mean _auta-_?)

              I was referring to IX:56, where the forms _lendien_ and
              _nilendie_ occur, and they are to be compared with the first edition's
              _vánier_, as well with the facing page (IX:57), where the perfect of
              #_tuv-_'find' consistently shows a long vowel (in both of the texts):
              _túvien_.

              > Nevertheless, there is a form which may show that the stem-vowel
              > is not shortened if preceded by _nt_: it is the preterite _lantie_
              > "fell" (be it either the past tense or perfect; LR:56).

              _nt_ is straightforwardly a cluster, I think, there's not a lot of
              problem with it.

              > **I do not think this was the form, because the syncope would not only
              > be hard to explain but probably even impossible. I think _aista-_ was
              > derived from *_(g)ais-tâ_, as the primitive form _gais-_ under the
              > entry GÁYAS- in Etym suggests.

              This is also possible, of course.

              > In my opinion, _my_ might be either [mj] or [m'j] phonetically,
              > but it is /mj/ phonologically.

              I agree.

              > **Yes, I am aware of the fact it is not shaded, but I do think that if
              > there is no sign for it means it does not exist in described
              > languages.

              Yes, but it means that it has been nowhere to date found as a phoneme.

              > There is no sign for Czech _r-hacek_, either.

              That'd be coarticulated [r] and [Z].

              > **While I agree with this, I still ask why we have _onye_, _olye_ but
              > _máryat_.

              One explanation is because the long _á_ in _máryat_ is etymological (<
              *_-A3_), but the _o_ in _onye_, _olye_ is etymologically short.

              > **Although this sounds likely and might be true, especially what regards
              > the _nCy_ sequences, I do not dare to combine all Cy combinations --
              > [Ales suspects that the Cy combinations in anlaut and inlaut are not
              > one and the same thing]

              Well, yes, they would be pronounced differently (the difference being
              the presence/absence of the glide).

              > **Only if we assume that Quenya does not allow sequences of three
              > consonantal phonemes.

              Arguments against?

              > **If the _ky_ combination stands [in _Erukyerme_ and _Ekyanáro_]
              > for one phoneme, then I think
              > it is a voiceless palato-velar stop, the same sound that is
              > reconstructed for Indo-European (if I am not mistaken).

              The difference between palato-velar and palatal is not so great, anyway
              the two are not attested as distinctive anywhere.

              > **As I suggested, I still need more phonetic training, but as far as I
              > undertand _ky_ as a palato-velar and _ty_ as a palatal (palato-dental)
              > are different sounds.

              Vide supra. This is possible, but highly untypological.

              > Neither of the most commonly taught languages
              > (i.e. French, Spanish, German) have a palatal _t_. In fact, which
              > European languages besides Czech, Slovak and Hungarian have it?

              Latvian. Macedonian. Albanian. (note all of these are not only European,
              but also Indo-European)

              > The example of 'tune' was probably the one Tolkien could use (not
              > to mention that he wrote it was "probably similar", which can mean
              > anything).

              Yes.

              > **Am I blind or Tolkien did not give any hint how NY should be
              > pronounced? I have not realized it until now. As a matter of fact,
              > he did not mention LY and RY, either. If these combinations stands
              > for palatal _l_ and _r_ respectively, why was it not mentioned?

              _Argumenta ex nihilo_ are dangerous, so I'd answer 'Tolkien only knows'

              > **At any rate, this to-some-degree-palatalized _l_ must still be
              > phonologically regarded as /l/, because this palatalization is
              > a syntagmatic assimilation of [l] to immediate _e, i_. The palatal
              > _l_, if existing in the language, is not depended on the phonetic
              > environment.

              Yes

              > **Let me know that any LY-root is not found, either.[...]
              > This can suggest that _ly_ is not monophonematic.

              Alternatively, this may suggest a prohibition of initial palatal[ized]
              liquids (since there's no _ry_)

              > On the other hand, the "d" component is often lost, as _Quendya_
              > > _Quenya_ shows.

              Are there examples of this in _The Etymologies_? Remember that the
              example is from Q&E.

              Pavel
              --
              Pavel Iosad pavel_iosad@m...

              Is mall a mharcaicheas am fear a bheachdaicheas
              --Scottish proverb
            • David Kiltz
              ... Note however (Pomp. comm. Don.: s littera hanc habet potestatem, ut ubi opus fuerit excludatur de metro. The character of the letter s is such that it
              Message 6 of 22 , Mar 7, 2003
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                On Donnerstag, März 6, 2003, at 07:10 Uhr, Pavel Iosad wrote:

                > [David Kiltz wrote:]
                >
                >> Rather my argument is that the hierarchy can be "violated" by
                >> groups of the kind "sC-".
                >
                > Though one would still wonder what gives it
                > the special status, since 's' is less consonantic than the stops. In
                > PIE, that's apparently its status as the only fricative. I'd hazard a
                > guess that is also the case for PQ.

                Note however (Pomp. comm. Don.: s littera hanc habet potestatem, ut ubi
                opus fuerit excludatur de metro. "The character of the letter s is such
                that it can, when necessary, be omitted in meter"). Latin has more
                fricatives than just s and yet this applies only to s.

                Pavel and I differed in the use of the word "semiotical".
                Pavel sees a typological similarity between PIE and PQ plosive
                inventories, to which I replied:

                >> DH doesn't figure in Elvish.
                >
                > Substitute [+ nasalized] for [+aspirated] and you get it.

                Well yes, but that would work with plosive inventories of many
                languages.

                > So are you suggesting that the mono- or biphonemic realization of
                > the _Cy_'s depends on whether the vowel before them is short or long?

                No. I was indeed thinking of an elvish SIEVER'S at a time. But I don't
                see any compelling reason to assume it.

                David Kiltz


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

                "Cum autem nobis non dicitur, sed nobiscum; quia si ita diceretur,
                obscoenius concurrerent litterae, ut etiam modo, nisi autem
                interpossuissem, concurrissent". -Cicero
              • Ales Bican
                ... **I see. Why do you think so? ... **I was not talking about a palatalized _p_, because I do not think the graphemic Cy combinations stand for palatalized
                Message 7 of 22 , Mar 15, 2003
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  David Kiltz wrote:

                  > Seems you understood me right. There was no confusion. I simply think
                  > that _ty_, _hy_, _ny_, _ly_ are combinations of C+y.

                  **I see. Why do you think so?

                  > > I think the reason why there is nothing like _p+y_ is still because
                  > > the word-initial graphemic Cy combinations stand for one phoneme,
                  > > not a combination of phonemes.
                  >
                  > I don't see the causality here. Even *if* the instances of Cy are
                  > monophonemic, how would that preclude a combination _py_ (being also
                  > monophonemic). Do you think a palatalized _p_ is a priori impossible ?
                  > If it's not, the reason for its non-occurence is euphonic, either way.

                  **I was not talking about a palatalized _p_, because I do not think
                  the graphemic Cy combinations stand for palatalized sounds, but for
                  _palatals_. I know Pavel's arguments and I wrote in earlier posts
                  why I think they are palatals (Tolkien said the tengwar had a series
                  for _palatals_ and described _ty_ as a _palatal_ stop, see the earlier
                  posts), but I would like to know yours -- why do you think they are
                  palatalized? I am curious to know, since many people seem to think
                  the same and perhaps I missed something?

                  Anyway, I am not against a palatalized _p_, but since I think initial
                  Cy combinations in PQ are monophonematic and palatals, a palatal _p_
                  would be hard to imagine. It would be a parallel to a palatal _m_
                  that I and Pavel talked about (namely we talked about _my_ in
                  _lamya_).

                  > **Ales gives the inventory of PQ, including:
                  >
                  > > palato-dentals: Ty, Dy, Ny (Thy not found)
                  >
                  > In my view there is no palato-dental series.

                  **What do you think these combinations stand for?

                  > Indeed, _onye_ and _ohlon_ seem to contradict what I said about
                  > _máryat_. However, if we look very closely, the cases aren't exactly
                  > the same. _Má_ is a full blown noun whereas _ó_ is a preposition.
                  > _Ohlon_ is a new word.

                  **It is. However, in WJ:367 Tolkien said that _ó-_ is "usually reduced
                  to _o-_ when unstressed". He then gave these examples: _omentie_,
                  _ónoni_ "twins" and _onóna_ "twin-born". I would therefore expect
                  *_óhlon_, but since we do not see this form, I think it may suggest
                  _hl_ here functions as a consonant cluster.

                  > Also, inflected prepositions tend to be viewed
                  > as one word as the developments of such inflections in e.g. Welsh and
                  > Irish show.

                  **Note that the _o-_ in _ohlon_ is not an inflected preposition but
                  a prefix. And as regards _onye_, it contrasts with _óni_ where no
                  reduction occurs because there is no consonant cluster while _ny_
                  in _onye_ is potentially a cluster because of the reduction. If _ny_
                  was a single phoneme (sound), there would be no reason for the
                  reduction.

                  > With _máryat_, the situation is different. Note that the
                  > _á_ of _máryat_ is indeed shortened when combined with a derivational
                  > element yielding a whole new word, cf: _-maite_.

                  **Or in _mannar_ in Fíriel's Song. But as I wrote in the very beginning:
                  there seems not to be any statement of Tolkien's prohibiting long vowels
                  before a consonant cluster.

                  > > In case of _aistana_, the relationship [with GAYAS] was perhaps
                  > > more desired to be retained because of the words such as _aire_.
                  >
                  > *Maybe* an irregular soundshape was retained. But that seems highly
                  > unusual. In all instance of homophony that Tolkien notes, the words
                  > fall out of use.

                  **The reason of the exception may not be just in avoiding homophony.
                  As I said, keeping the relationship with _aire_ et al. could have
                  played its role. As the _Melko_ example suggest, the diphthong _ai_
                  is reduced before a consonant cluster -- and so would it be expected
                  to be reduced before _st_. Nevertheless, I agree that the sC
                  combinations seem to have a special status.

                  > > As regards _Hrísto_, this is a doubtful example, because Tolkien
                  > > change it to _Hristo_ immediately.
                  >
                  > Which may be indicative and may not. The Greek _i_ is also short. (Note
                  > that _hr_ here stands by all likelihood for two sounds, representing
                  > Greek "chi+rho". If _hr_ was indeed monophonemic, why would it have
                  > been chosen over simple _r_ or e.g. _kr_. Do you think that _hr_
                  > represents another sound than it does normally in Quenya ?).

                  **Personally, I thought the name _Hristo_ was taken from Latin
                  'Christus' where the 'ch' is pronounced as [x] (if I am not mistaken),
                  hence _xr-_ > _r-voiceless_, just as I suppose _sr-_ > _xr-_/_hr-_
                  > _r-voiceless_.

                  However, despire what was pointed by others (esp. Petri), I also
                  think that we may deal with two phonemes (rather then phones) here,
                  namely _h_ + _r_. This combination may be realized as voiceless
                  _r_ word-initially (which be d'accord with Tolkien's words cited
                  by Petri) but as a biphonic combination _hr_ word-medially (which
                  would explain _ohlon_).

                  When I studied Old English grammars when working on the Atalante
                  fragment analysis, I found out that OE has _hr_, _hl_, _hy_ and
                  _hw_ occurring only word-initially (and in compounds). This is
                  where Tolkien took the idea, I suppose. However, I have not been
                  able to find out how these _hr, hl, hy, hw_ are treated
                  phonologically: whether as a biphonemic combinations _h_ + sonant
                  or monophonemic voiceless sonants.

                  > > Phonetically according to the sonority scale [stems like MBAR]
                  > > should be dissyllabic. Phonologically, however, they seem
                  > > to be monosyllabic.
                  >
                  > I agree with you in your assessment of _MB_ etc. as monophonemic.
                  > Your last sentence, however, I think is wrong. In my opinion, there is
                  > no phonetic/phonological contradiction here. If _MBAR_ is indeed
                  > monosyllabic it also is phonetically so. Because there is no scale
                  > then. _MB_ has óne pitch, then.

                  **What I meant to say is that for instance MBAR may represent
                  two phonetic syllables M and BAR if M is here syllabic. However,
                  phonologically MBAR may be just one syllable if we assume that
                  PQ did not allow any word-initial consonantal combinations except
                  for _s_ + consonant (under the assumtion that Cy combinations are
                  monophonematic -- and I think they are).

                  As far as I know (though I have not been able to investigate details
                  yet) K. L. Pike made a distinction between phonetic and phonemic
                  syllables (in his _Phonemics_). Reportedly, he mentioned that the
                  word [Ndá:] in the Mixteco language; this word is both phonetically
                  and phonemically dissyllabic, but whereas the syllable separation is
                  [N-dá:] phonetically, it is /nda-a/ phonemically, because Mixteco
                  is a tone language, where each syllable has a tone but [N] has no
                  tone, and _nd-_ is one phoneme, because there are otherwise no
                  consonant clusters in the language.

                  > We are dealing with prenasalized stops here, I'd say.

                  **Yes, they seem to be (Tolkien speaks about them as nasalized
                  explosives in _The Qenya Phonology_).

                  > _umbar_ may well not be a case of a syllabic _m_ but
                  > actually *_ú-mbar_ "ill fate".

                  **Sure, that is possible. However, there are other examples, like
                  ÑGYÓ > Q _indyo_.

                  > (Unfortunately I'm unable to access two of the sources mentioned by
                  > Ales an Carl: David Salo's post and PE 12 (as well as 11).

                  **I understand that you are not able to access PE12, as it is out of
                  print (which does not help the scholarship at all!), but David's post
                  should be accessible via www. If you are still unable to access it,
                  let me know off-list and I will forward it to you.

                  [Out of print does not necessarily mean inaccessible; there is,
                  _inter alia_, library loan. CFH]

                  Ales Bican

                  --
                  kurvannapi vyalíkáni yah. priyah. priya eva sah.
                  anekadós.adus.t.ó 'pi káyah. kasya na vallabhah.
                • Ales Bican
                  ... **You are right, thanks. Here, however, we cannot say the morphological module would give a form like *_léndie_ and the phonology proper module would
                  Message 8 of 22 , Mar 16, 2003
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Pavel Iosad wrote:

                    > > **Er, did I miss something? As far as I know neither the perfect of
                    > > _lelya-_ (did you mean _auta-_?)
                    >
                    > I was referring to IX:56, where the forms _lendien_ and
                    > _nilendie_ occur, and they are to be compared with the first edition's
                    > _vánier_, as well with the facing page (IX:57), where the perfect of
                    > #_tuv-_'find' consistently shows a long vowel (in both of the texts):
                    > _túvien_.

                    **You are right, thanks. Here, however, we cannot say the
                    morphological module would give a form like *_léndie_ and
                    the 'phonology proper' module would then give the actual
                    output _lendie_, because the stem was already strengthened
                    by a nasal-infixed _n_, which is comparable to the lengthening
                    in, say, _káre_ "made, did".

                    By the way, what about the present tense of _lanta-_? Did you
                    mean the form _lantar_ in Namárie?

                    > > Nevertheless, there is a form which may show that the stem-vowel
                    > > is not shortened if preceded by _nt_: it is the preterite _lantie_
                    > > "fell" (be it either the past tense or perfect; LR:56).
                    >
                    > _nt_ is straightforwardly a cluster, I think, there's not a lot of
                    > problem with it.

                    **So is _nd_.

                    > > There is no sign for Czech _r-hacek_, either.
                    >
                    > That'd be coarticulated [r] and [Z].

                    **Is it? As far as I understand and as I hear, it is not coarticulated. Or
                    does the quotation from Trubetzkoy suggest so?

                    > > **While I agree with this, I still ask why we have _onye_, _olye_ but
                    > > _máryat_.
                    >
                    > One explanation is because the long _á_ in _máryat_ is etymological (<
                    > *_-A3_), but the _o_ in _onye_, _olye_ is etymologically short.

                    **I do not think so. The base in Etym is given as WÔ (though in _Quendi
                    and Eldar_ as WO, WJ:367).

                    > > **Although this sounds likely and might be true, especially what regards
                    > > the _nCy_ sequences, I do not dare to combine all Cy combinations --
                    > > [Ales suspects that the Cy combinations in anlaut and inlaut are not
                    > > one and the same thing]
                    >
                    > Well, yes, they would be pronounced differently (the difference being
                    > the presence/absence of the glide).

                    **Now the question whether the glide is phonologic, I mean whether the
                    glide is a separate phoneme.

                    > > **If the _ky_ combination stands [in _Erukyerme_ and _Ekyanáro_]
                    > > for one phoneme, then I think
                    > > it is a voiceless palato-velar stop, the same sound that is
                    > > reconstructed for Indo-European (if I am not mistaken).
                    >
                    > The difference between palato-velar and palatal is not so great, anyway
                    > the two are not attested as distinctive anywhere.

                    **The degree of difference is relative. I can say the difference between
                    the sound in English _bad_ and _bed_ is not so great (and I still would
                    hesitate which one is which if one of the words was uttered without any
                    context), yet it is distinctive in English.
                    And the typology obstacle is not so relevant. The _r-hacek_ (now that
                    we speak about it) is also very rare.
                    Here I mean the situation in Primitive Quendian rather, because _ky_
                    in Q _Erukyerme_ and _Ekyanáro_ may be just a variant of _ty_.

                    > > Neither of the most commonly taught languages
                    > > (i.e. French, Spanish, German) have a palatal _t_. In fact, which
                    > > European languages besides Czech, Slovak and Hungarian have it?
                    >
                    > Latvian. Macedonian. Albanian. (note all of these are not only European,
                    > but also Indo-European)

                    **And that is the problem: Tolkien could not have mentioned either
                    of these languages, because a normal English reader could not know
                    either of them.

                    > > On the other hand, the "d" component is often lost, as _Quendya_
                    > > > _Quenya_ shows.
                    >
                    > Are there examples of this in _The Etymologies_? Remember that the
                    > example is from Q&E.

                    **There is _endya_ and _enya_ "middle" under the base ENED.


                    Ales Bican

                    --
                    kurvannapi vyalíkáni yah. priyah. priya eva sah.
                    anekadós.adus.t.ó 'pi káyah. kasya na vallabhah.
                  • Lukas Novak
                    ... AFAIK and hear, it is like [r], only the frequency of trilling is about thrice as high. I think that pronunciation as coarticulated [r] and [Z] would be
                    Message 9 of 22 , Mar 16, 2003
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Ales Bican wrote:

                      >> > There is no sign for Czech _r-hacek_, either.
                      >>
                      >> That'd be coarticulated [r] and [Z].

                      > **Is it? As far as I understand and as I hear, it is not coarticulated. Or
                      > does the quotation from Trubetzkoy suggest so?

                      AFAIK and hear, it is like [r], only the frequency of trilling is
                      about thrice as high. I think that pronunciation as coarticulated [r]
                      and [Z] would be funny and incorrect (it would betray a stranger :-)).

                      Lukas
                    • David Kiltz
                      ... I will address this issue in a seperate post. ... I understand now. ... Again more on that seperately. ... Yes, I don t see how a labial could be anything
                      Message 10 of 22 , Mar 16, 2003
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Samstag, März 15, 2003, at 06:53 Uhr, Ales Bican wrote:

                        > David Kiltz wrote:
                        >
                        >> Seems you understood me right. There was no confusion. I simply think
                        >> that _ty_, _hy_, _ny_, _ly_ are combinations of C+y.
                        >
                        > **I see. Why do you think so?

                        I will address this issue in a seperate post.

                        > **I was not talking about a palatalized _p_, because I do not think
                        > the graphemic Cy combinations stand for palatalized sounds, but for
                        > _palatals_.

                        I understand now.

                        > -- why do you think they are palatalized?

                        Again more on that seperately.

                        > Anyway, I am not against a palatalized _p_, but since I think initial
                        > Cy combinations in PQ are monophonematic and palatals, a palatal _p_
                        > would be hard to imagine. It would be a parallel to a palatal _m_
                        > that I and Pavel talked about (namely we talked about _my_ in
                        > _lamya_).

                        Yes, I don't see how a labial could be anything other than "palatalized".

                        >> **Ales gives the inventory of PQ, including:
                        >>
                        >>> palato-dentals: Ty, Dy, Ny (Thy not found)
                        >>
                        >> In my view there is no palato-dental series.
                        >
                        > **What do you think these combinations stand for?

                        Well, a palato-dental, in my view, is a "palatalized" sound. Maybe they
                        where palato-alveolars or lamino-palatals (i.e. articulated at the same
                        place as e.g. English [sh and zh]). At any rate an inventory with regular
                        palatals + palato-dentals looks very dubious. Again, I think true dental
                        pronunciation only allows for palatalization.

                        > in WJ:367 Tolkien said that _ó-_ is "usually reduced
                        > to _o-_ when unstressed". He then gave these examples: _omentie_,
                        > _ónoni_ "twins" and _onóna_ "twin-born". I would therefore expect
                        > *_óhlon_, but since we do not see this form, I think it may suggest
                        > _hl_ here functions as a consonant cluster.

                        Yes, I agree. Just as _ry_ is.

                        >> Also, inflected prepositions tend to be viewed as one word as the
                        >> developments of such inflections in e.g. Welsh and Irish show.
                        >
                        > **Note that the _o-_ in _ohlon_ is not an inflected preposition but
                        > a prefix. And as regards _onye_, it contrasts with _óni_ where no
                        > reduction occurs because there is no consonant cluster while _ny_
                        > in _onye_ is potentially a cluster because of the reduction. If _ny_
                        > was a single phoneme (sound), there would be no reason for the
                        > reduction.

                        Just what I said. I noted that _ó_ is a preposition and that it is
                        inflected. I am and was quite aware that _ohlon_ is not an inflected
                        preposition. My remarks were meant to contrast this, in my view perfectly
                        regular behaviour, with that of _máryat_. Interestingly, you're answering your
                        own question about _ny_. I think it stands for _n+y_, a cluster indeed.

                        >> Note that the _á_ of _máryat_ is indeed shortened when combined
                        >> with a derivational element yielding a whole new word, cf: _-maite_.
                        >
                        > there seems not to be any statement of Tolkien's prohibiting long
                        > vowels before a consonant cluster.

                        But we see reduction almost everywhere else.

                        > **The reason of the exception may not be just in avoiding homophony.
                        > As I said, keeping the relationship with _aire_ et al. could have played its role.

                        Agreed.

                        > **Personally, I thought the name _Hristo_ was taken from Latin
                        > 'Christus' where the 'ch' is pronounced as [x] (if I am not mistaken),
                        > hence _xr-_ > _r-voiceless_, just as I suppose _sr-_ > _xr-_/_hr-_
                        > _r-voiceless_.

                        The word is of Greek origin. Why would it be taken from Latin where it
                        is itself a loan? Also, in view of Christian-Latin texts and the development
                        of the word "Christus" in the Romanic languages (_cr-_) I think it was
                        pronounced [kr]. That makes a direct loan from Greek into Quenya even
                        more likely, I'd say.

                        > I found out that OE has _hr_, _hl_, _hy_ and
                        > _hw_ occurring only word-initially (and in compounds). This is
                        > where Tolkien took the idea, I suppose. However, I have not been
                        > able to find out how these _hr, hl, hy, hw_ are treated
                        > phonologically: whether as a biphonemic combinations _h_ + sonant
                        > or monophonemic voiceless sonants.

                        1) They are biphonemic combinations as can be gleaned from their use in
                        alliterative verse. These _h_'s go back to pre-Germanic _k_.

                        2) I don't think this is where Tolkien got the inspiration. At least
                        not in the case of _hl_ and _hr_ which < *_sl_ and *_sr_. I'd warrant
                        the guess that the sounds (voiceless _l_ and _r_), were suggested to
                        him by Welsh.

                        David Kiltz
                      • Lukas Novak
                        ... Please excuse my amateur query: Would the distinction between Polish c-acute or s-acute and cz, sz respectively, be of the kind you re speaking about?
                        Message 11 of 22 , Mar 17, 2003
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          David Kiltz wrote:

                          > Well, a palato-dental, in my view, is a "palatalized" sound. Maybe they
                          > were palato-alveolars or lamino-palatals (i.e. articulated at the same
                          > place as e.g. English [sh and zh]).
                          > At any rate an inventory with regular palatals + palato-dentals looks
                          > very dubious.

                          Please excuse my amateur query: Would the distinction between Polish
                          c-acute or s-acute and cz, sz respectively, be of the kind you're
                          speaking about?

                          Lukas
                        • Ales Bican
                          ... **Ok. Am looking forward to. ... **As I said I was not a phonetician. What I mean by palato-dentals is the sounds like _t , d _ in Czech and Hungarian
                          Message 12 of 22 , Apr 9 7:51 AM
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            David Kiltz wrote:

                            > >> Seems you understood me right. There was no confusion. I simply think
                            > >> that _ty_, _hy_, _ny_, _ly_ are combinations of C+y.
                            > >
                            > > **I see. Why do you think so?
                            >
                            > I will address this issue in a seperate post.

                            **Ok. Am looking forward to.

                            > > **What do you think these combinations (Ty, Dy, Ny (+Thy)) stand for?
                            >
                            > Well, a palato-dental, in my view, is a "palatalized" sound. Maybe they
                            > where palato-alveolars or lamino-palatals (i.e. articulated at the same
                            > place as e.g. English [sh and zh]).

                            **As I said I was not a phonetician. What I mean by palato-dentals is
                            the sounds like _t', d'_ in Czech and Hungarian (called "palatals" in IPA).
                            They are not palatalized in the sense that the palatalization is a kind of
                            secondary articulation, a timbre added to primary articulation. Of course,
                            the difference between a palatal _t'_ and palatalized _t_ would be very
                            difficult to perceive.

                            They may well be palato-alveolars, but the difference between alveolars
                            and dentals is not relevant here; English _t_ is alveolar, while Czech _t_
                            is dental or rather pre-alveolar. I chose to call them dentals, because Tolkien
                            speaks about these sounds as dentals.

                            > At any rate an inventory with regular
                            > palatals + palato-dentals looks very dubious. Again, I think true dental
                            > pronunciation only allows for palatalization.

                            **It is certainly a little bit strange to have both palato-velars and palato-
                            dentals in one system. The question is how else interpret KY and TY.

                            > > in WJ:367 Tolkien said that _ó-_ is "usually reduced
                            > > to _o-_ when unstressed". He then gave these examples: _omentie_,
                            > > _ónoni_ "twins" and _onóna_ "twin-born". I would therefore expect
                            > > *_óhlon_, but since we do not see this form, I think it may suggest
                            > > _hl_ here functions as a consonant cluster.
                            >
                            > Yes, I agree. Just as _ry_ is.

                            **This is what I think from the beginning -- and therefore we can have
                            a long vowel before a consonant cluster (sc. _máryat_).

                            > > **Note that the _o-_ in _ohlon_ is not an inflected preposition but
                            > > a prefix. And as regards _onye_, it contrasts with _óni_ where no
                            > > reduction occurs because there is no consonant cluster while _ny_
                            > > in _onye_ is potentially a cluster because of the reduction. If _ny_
                            > > was a single phoneme (sound), there would be no reason for the
                            > > reduction.
                            >
                            > Just what I said. I noted that _ó_ is a preposition and that it is
                            > inflected. I am and was quite aware that _ohlon_ is not an inflected
                            > preposition. My remarks were meant to contrast this, in my view perfectly
                            > regular behaviour, with that of _máryat_. Interestingly, you're answering your
                            > own question about _ny_. I think it stands for _n+y_, a cluster indeed.

                            **Again, I think the same from the beginning when I talked about
                            primary and secondary Cy combinations. The question is now
                            whether the combination _ny_ should be identified with word-initial
                            _ny-_, I mean whether we could say that the biphonematic combination
                            /nj/ is realized as [nj] (resp. [n'j] or [Nj]; n' = palatalized; N = palatal n)
                            intervocalically and as [N] word-initially and after another consonant
                            (i.e. in cases like _nty_ or _lty_). I hesitate to do so, though.

                            > >> Note that the _á_ of _máryat_ is indeed shortened when combined
                            > >> with a derivational element yielding a whole new word, cf: _-maite_.
                            > >
                            > > there seems not to be any statement of Tolkien's prohibiting long
                            > > vowels before a consonant cluster.
                            >
                            > But we see reduction almost everywhere else.

                            **That is true. And my best explanation is that _máryat_ is some kind
                            of exception.

                            > > **Personally, I thought the name _Hristo_ was taken from Latin
                            > > 'Christus' where the 'ch' is pronounced as [x] (if I am not mistaken),
                            > > hence _xr-_ > _r-voiceless_, just as I suppose _sr-_ > _xr-_/_hr-_
                            > > _r-voiceless_.
                            >
                            > The word is of Greek origin. Why would it be taken from Latin where it
                            > is itself a loan?

                            **Well, I am not skilled in these things. I just thought that _María_ seemed
                            to be taken from Latin and so could _Hristo_ be.

                            > Also, in view of Christian-Latin texts and the development
                            > of the word "Christus" in the Romanic languages (_cr-_) I think it was
                            > pronounced [kr]. That makes a direct loan from Greek into Quenya even
                            > more likely, I'd say.

                            **I may be wrong but I have always thought it was pronounced
                            [xr-] in Greek, since Greek had the [x] sound, and this pronunciation
                            was used in Latin, too. I may be wrong, of course.

                            [on _hl, hr_ etc. in Old English:]

                            > 1) They are biphonemic combinations as can be gleaned from their use in
                            > alliterative verse. These _h_'s go back to pre-Germanic _k_.

                            **I see. I suspected it was so.

                            > 2) I don't think this is where Tolkien got the inspiration. At least
                            > not in the case of _hl_ and _hr_ which < *_sl_ and *_sr_. I'd warrant
                            > the guess that the sounds (voiceless _l_ and _r_), were suggested to
                            > him by Welsh.

                            **Thanks for the information. I do not know any Welsh but I
                            know a little bit Old English, so this is why I thought so.
                            Anyway, what is the phonologic status of _hr_ and _hl_ in Welsh
                            then? And are you suggesting that they are reflexes of _sl_ and
                            _sr_?


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