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

Re: [Lambengolmor] Re: Tyelpetema and phonetics vs. phonology in Quenya

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 of 22 , Apr 9, 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 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.