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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 22 , Mar 16, 2003
      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 2 of 22 , Mar 16, 2003
        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 3 of 22 , Mar 17, 2003
          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 4 of 22 , Apr 9, 2003
            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.