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
    • 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
    • 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 2 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 3 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.