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

Re: Palatalization and Syllabification in Quenya

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 22 , Mar 3, 2003
    • 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 2 of 22 , Mar 6, 2003
      • 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 3 of 22 , Mar 6, 2003
        • 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 4 of 22 , Mar 7, 2003
          • 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 5 of 22 , Mar 15, 2003
            • 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 6 of 22 , Mar 16, 2003
              • 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 7 of 22 , Mar 16, 2003
                • 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 8 of 22 , Mar 16, 2003
                  • 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 9 of 22 , Mar 17, 2003
                    • 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 10 of 22 , Apr 9 7:51 AM
                      • 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.