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

Re: Palatalization and Syllabification in Quenya

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.