Re: [Lambengolmor] Re: Tyelpetema and phonetics vs. phonology in Quenya
- Ales Bican wrote:
>> > There is no sign for Czech _r-hacek_, either.AFAIK and hear, it is like [r], only the frequency of trilling is
>> 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?
about thrice as high. I think that pronunciation as coarticulated [r]
and [Z] would be funny and incorrect (it would betray a stranger :-)).
- David Kiltz wrote:
> Well, a palato-dental, in my view, is a "palatalized" sound. Maybe theyPlease excuse my amateur query: Would the distinction between Polish
> 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.
c-acute or s-acute and cz, sz respectively, be of the kind you're
- David Kiltz wrote:
> >> Seems you understood me right. There was no confusion. I simply think**Ok. Am looking forward to.
> >> 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.
> > **What do you think these combinations (Ty, Dy, Ny (+Thy)) stand for?**As I said I was not a phonetician. What I mean by palato-dentals is
> 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]).
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**It is certainly a little bit strange to have both palato-velars and palato-
> palatals + palato-dentals looks very dubious. Again, I think true dental
> pronunciation only allows for palatalization.
dentals in one system. The question is how else interpret KY and TY.
> > in WJ:367 Tolkien said that _ó-_ is "usually reduced**This is what I think from the beginning -- and therefore we can have
> > 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.
a long vowel before a consonant cluster (sc. _máryat_).
> > **Note that the _o-_ in _ohlon_ is not an inflected preposition but**Again, I think the same from the beginning when I talked about
> > 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.
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**That is true. And my best explanation is that _máryat_ is some kind
> >> 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.
> > **Personally, I thought the name _Hristo_ was taken from Latin**Well, I am not skilled in these things. I just thought that _María_ seemed
> > '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?
to be taken from Latin and so could _Hristo_ be.
> Also, in view of Christian-Latin texts and the development**I may be wrong but I have always thought it was pronounced
> 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.
[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**I see. I suspected it was so.
> 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**Thanks for the information. I do not know any Welsh but I
> 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.
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