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

Re: Pronunciation and writing of _r_ in Quenya

Expand Messages
  • mach
    ... Why would Feanor create a letter for a sound he didn t use? Sure, he also created letters for aspirated sounds, but I guess this was rather because these
    Message 1 of 16 , Jan 6, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Helios cited from app. E:

      > > "[Óre] was often used for a weak (untrilled) _r_, originally occurring
      > > in Quenya and regarded in the system of that language as the weakest
      > > consonant of the _tincotéma_." (LR:1094)

      Edouard Kloczko commented:
      > I read here "originally occurring in Quenya" as meaning "originally
      > occurring in Common Eldarin (?)or/and Primitive Quendian", e.g. *not* in
      > Quenya as the living language of Aman and later in Exile, in which we had
      > only one trilled r.

      Why would Feanor create a letter for a sound he didn't use? Sure, he also
      created letters for aspirated sounds, but I guess this was rather because
      these sounds were observed in the language of the Valar. Or can we suppose
      that the lambengolmor of Feanor's time already knew the sounds of Common
      Eldarin (?)or/and Primitive Quendian? To my understanding, these sounds
      could only be reconstructed when the Eldar knew Sindarin and other Elvish
      dialects from Middle-Earth. And if we suppose that these sounds were known
      at the time of Feanor: Why would a letter for a sound that was only
      distinguished in Common Eldarin (?)or/and Primitive Quendian become part of
      the standard orthography of Quenya?

      As I understand it, there's only an external explanation for the duality of
      r-letters. J. R. R. Tolkien developed these two letters for a phonetic
      representation of his own "r-dropping" dialect of English: rómen for
      approximant _r_ and óre for dropped _r_, that is, for the schwa-sound that
      replaces an original _r_, e.g. in _here, there, under_ (it's difficult to
      decide whether óre is a vowel letter or a consonant letter).

      When he wrote Quenya with tengwar, he used both letters in almost the same
      way he used them in English. Maybe this was only because he was used to do
      so, or maybe because he liked to have diverse letters. Maybe Tolkien's
      attitude to the tengwar was somewhat lax, similar to Feanor's: "[...] in any
      case his primary interest was in _writing_, in its practical and its
      decorative aspects rather than in an accurate phonetic transcription. Not
      that he was with without interest in phonetic analysis" (app. E to _Quendi
      and Eldar_, in: VT 39, p. 8).

      Maybe his use of the two r-letters in Quenya remained unconscient until he
      had to explain how the tengwar work, that is, at last until he wrote the
      appendices to the Lord of the Rings. Helios' above quote might mean that J.
      R. R. Tolkien planned to revise the Quenya phonology by introducing a
      distinction of approximant _r_ vs. trilled _r_, but since his attitude to
      spelling matters was similar to Feanor's, he forgot to do so.

      Is the hypothesis of such a planned but never fulfilled revision plausible,
      I mean, do we have any evidence for similar cases?

      ---------------------------
      j. 'mach' wust
      http://machhezan.tripod.com
      ---------------------------

      [Edouard's reading of "originally occuring in Quenya" (with regard to untrilled
      _r_) as meaning "originally occurring in Common Eldarin (?)or/and Primitive
      Quendian" is, I think, unjustified and highly idiosyncratic. If one applies Occam's
      Razor (the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct) to this question,
      the situation regarding trilled R and weak R in Quenya seems rather obvious.
      Though R came to be pronounced as "a trilled _r_ in all positions" (LR:1088),
      there was originally also a weak R in Quenya (either Old Quenya, or the more
      conservative form of the language spoken in Valinor, as opposed to Exilic
      Quenya). Tolkien's use of the tengwar Rómen versus Óre in his transcription
      of "Namárie" gives us a clear indication of where these two sounds originally
      occurred -- trilled R (rómen) was usual at the beginning of words or
      intervocalically, and weak R (óre) was usual before consonants and at the
      end of words. -- PHW]
    • Helios De Rosario Martinez
      ... [snip] ... Of course. I will translate the text (I wrote it in Spanish) and then post it. But it will be in another post (it is quite long). ... Yes, so it
      Message 2 of 16 , Jan 6, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Ales Bican wrote:
        >
        > Helios De Rosario Martinez wrote:
        >
        > >I skip the discussion on the variants _rd_, _ry_, _hr_ and _rr_,

        [snip]

        > is it possible for you to share your insights with
        > us (or me off-list if need be)?
        >

        Of course. I will translate the text (I wrote it in Spanish) and then
        post it. But it will be in another post (it is quite long).

        > Another piece of
        > information relevant for the present discussion is the fact that
        > in Spanish a "weak" _r_ (i.e. the tap) occurs word-finally
        > while a trilled _r_ (i.e. the trill) occurs word-initially and
        > sometimes intervocalically where it sometimes stands in
        > opposition with the tap.

        Yes, so it is. The tap also occurs in contact (after or before) a
        consonant, although in those positions it depends on the individual
        pronunciation: some people (I myself, for instance) slightly trill
        ante- and post-consonantal _r_ depending on the velocity of speech
        (specially when speaking slowly or emphasizing the word). But the rule
        is:

        - Initial _r_ and intervocalic _rr_: trilled.
        - In other positions (final or adjacent to a consonant), and
        intervocalic _r_: tap.

        Note that intervocalic _rr_ is not longer (as Finnish); it only marks
        that it is trilled, opposite to intervocalic _r_.


        > The untrilled variety Tolkien mentioned in
        > App. E is also not (in my opinion) the English approximant
        > but a tap/flap. I find it more likely because a tap occurs in
        > Spanish (and also in Finnish).

        That is the only point were we disagree. The sounds in Finnish and
        Quenya are a good hint, of course. But note that LR:1094 says:

        "Grade 6 was most often used for the _weakest or 'semi-vocalic'_
        consonants of each series. (...) Thus [óre] was often used for a weak
        (untrilled) _r_, _originally_ occurring in Quenya and regarded in the
        system of that language as the weakest consonant of the tincotéma."
        [emphasis mine].

        I learn from those words that the original consonant for _óre_ was a
        "semi-vocalic" dental, as _anna_ was a "semi-vocalic" velar and
        _wilya_ was a "semi-vocalic" labio-velar. And I think that this
        "semi-vocalic" is what in the terminology of the IPA is called
        "approximant".

        This is not opposite to the fact that later Quenya lost this
        approximant sound, and retained only the Finnish-like trilled (and
        tap, maybe).


        > Describing situation in Spanish Helios wrote:
        >
        > > - "'full' trilled" is like "vibrante múltiple" ("trilled" for
        > > IPA).
        > > - "trilled" is like "vibrante" ("trilled" or "tap" for IPA).
        >
        > **Do you mean "untrilled" or "tap" for IPA?
        >

        No, I mean "either 'trilled' or 'tap' for IPA".
        _Vibrante_ is (in Spanish phonetical terminology) an ambiguous term,
        since it can be referred to either _vibrante múltiple_ (trilled) or
        _vibrante simple_ (tap). The common point is that both are opposite to
        the approximant, which is nearly "mute" for Spanish ears.

        What I meant is that maybe Tolkien used the word "trilled" in this
        way, not with its specific meaning for IPA, but opposite to the "weak"
        (which he specified as "untrilled") approximant.

        Helios
      • David Kiltz
        ... Laurence J. Krieg provided us with an accurate transcription of recordings (made in 1952) where J.R.R. Tolkien reads, inter alia, Namárie and A
        Message 3 of 16 , Jan 6, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          On 05.01.2004, at 23:12, Ales Bican wrote:

          > With this information at hand I can return to Quenya. My
          > opinion is as follows: Tolkien spoke about a trilled _r_ and
          > I think he really meant the (apical) dental/alveolar trill and
          > not the Southern English approximant, because a trill appears
          > in Finnish, Spanish and Italian. All of these languages Tolkien
          > knew and liked. The untrilled variety Tolkien mentioned in
          > App. E is also not (in my opinion) the English approximant
          > but a tap/flap. I find it more likely because a tap occurs in
          > Spanish (and also in Finnish). And there is also a striking
          > resemblance in distribution of the sound. In Spanish a tap
          > occurs word-finally; in Quenya the untrilled _r_ is represented
          > by <óre> and this tengwa is usually used for word-final _r_'s.
          > Furthermore, in Spanish a trill occurs word-initially; in Quenya
          > the trilled _r_ is represented by <rómen> and this tengwa
          > is usually used for word-initial _r_'s.

          Laurence J. Krieg provided us with an accurate transcription of
          recordings (made in 1952) where J.R.R. Tolkien reads, inter alia,
          'Namárie' and 'A Elbereth Gilthoniel' [Jim Allan: An Introduction to
          Elvish p. 152ff.].

          From the transcription it can be seen that trilled and tapped 'r' are
          virtually interchangeable in Tolkien's pronunciation of Elvish. Tapped
          'r' is numerically prevalent whereas trilled 'r' is found throughout
          before dental (a common phenomenon).

          Hence I think it is possible that Quenya is thought to feature (or
          would 'naturally' have) positional variants of its 'r's, oscillating
          between trilled and tapped 'r'.

          However, Tolkien would mean both a tapped and a trilled 'r' when
          using the cover term 'trilled' in the Appendices.

          Although the distinction between tapped (actually a 'one-trill' r) and
          trilled 'r' e.g. in Spanish can be heard clearly, I think most people
          would characterize those 'r's as 'trilled' when speaking without a
          linguistic background or making only a rough statement. And
          indeed a trill is distinguished from a 'tap' or 'flap' just by the
          number of taps/flaps. That is, a trilled 'r' has many flaps.

          Hence, I think it most likely that the 'r' originally represented by
          <óre> would have been an approximant or fricative. As for the point of
          articulation, the listing in the tincotéma might be suggestive as Ales
          has said (i.e. dental/alveolar/post-alveolar). A guttural approximant
          or fricative might also be considered.

          -David Kiltz
        • Ales Bican
          I wrote that my opinion was that by untrilled _r_ Tolkien had meant a tap/flap (occurring in Spanish) and not an approximant (occurring in English). ...
          Message 4 of 16 , Jan 6, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            I wrote that my opinion was that by 'untrilled' _r_ Tolkien had
            meant a tap/flap (occurring in Spanish) and not an approximant
            (occurring in English).

            Helios De Rosario Martinez wrote:

            >That is the only point were we disagree. The sounds in Finnish and
            >Quenya [read: 'Spanish' -- ab] are a good hint, of course. But note that
            > LR:1094 says:
            >
            >"Grade 6 was most often used for the _weakest or 'semi-vocalic'_
            >consonants of each series. (...) Thus [óre] was often used for a weak
            >(untrilled) _r_, _originally_ occurring in Quenya and regarded in the
            >system of that language as the weakest consonant of the tincotéma."
            >[emphasis mine].

            **This is an interesting note, I have not considered it until now.
            Since <vala> belongs to "semi-vocalic" parmatéma/labials, it
            speaks for my assumption that _v_ is a labial approximant rather
            than voiced counterpart of _f_. At least _phonologically_
            (inferring from its distribution and from the general phonological
            system of Quenya) I am inclided to regard it as a labial
            approximant and not labial (labio-dental) voiced spirant.

            [Perhaps of relevance here is Tolkien's note in _The Shibboleth of
            Fëanor_ that in early Quenya "the labial spirant _f_ was bilabial, and
            so remains in Vanyarin" (VT41:7). CFH]

            >I learn from those words that the original consonant for _óre_ was a
            >"semi-vocalic" dental, as _anna_ was a "semi-vocalic" velar

            **You mean "semi-vocalic" palatal, because no "semi-vocalic"
            velar appears in Quenya.

            > and _wilya_ was a "semi-vocalic" labio-velar. And I think that this
            >"semi-vocalic" is what in the terminology of the IPA is called
            >"approximant".

            **This is certainly a good point. But again we must be cautious
            with Tolkien's terms, for if he writes "semi-vocalic", it does not
            have to mean that all these sounds are of the very same nature.
            Similarly, if he writes "dentals" and lists _t, s, n, r, l_, it
            does not mean that all these sounds are dentals. I would not rely
            much on the fact that <óre> belongs to Grade 6, because it does
            not actually state anything about how it was pronounced. Suppose
            Quenya really had a tap and not an approximant, do you think that
            Tolkien would have hesitated to use <óre> for this sound or do you
            think he would have used another _tengwa_? Even though <óre> does
            not have to be phonetically the best representation of the tap, it is
            nevertheless a very apt choice, since <óre> belongs to the
            _tincotéma_, which is the series that is used to represent all
            "dental" sounds that appear word-finally except for _l_:
            <tinco>, <thúle> (?), <númen> and <silme> (supposing it is a
            modification of <thúle>).

            >This is not opposite to the fact that later Quenya lost this
            >approximant sound, and retained only the Finnish-like trilled (and
            >tap, maybe).

            **Nor is it oppositive to the fact that Quenya could have
            lost the tap.

            >_Vibrante_ is (in Spanish phonetical terminology) an ambiguous term,
            >since it can be referred to either _vibrante múltiple_ (trilled) or
            >_vibrante simple_ (tap). The common point is that both are opposite to
            >the approximant, which is nearly "mute" for Spanish ears.
            >
            >What I meant is that maybe Tolkien used the word "trilled" in this
            >way, not with its specific meaning for IPA, but opposite to the "weak"
            >(which he specified as "untrilled") approximant.

            **I see. But still I think it more likely that he meant the tap by
            "untrilled". If we disregard the loose information Tolkien gives
            about _r_ in Quenya in App. E, we are only left with indirect
            evidence from real languages. So if I were to decide whether the
            "untrilled" _r_ is a tap or an approximant, I would (and will)
            choose the tap, because a tap occurs in Spanish and distribution
            of the Spanish tap and trill is very reminiscent of distribution
            of Quenya <óre> and <rómen> (i.e. "untrilled" and "trilled" _r_).
            However, as I said it is only indirect evidence.


            Ales Bican

            --
            What's in a name? That which we call a rose
            by any other name would smell as sweet. (Juliet, _Romeo and Juliet_)
          • Ales Bican
            To my note that Tolkien was not always accurate in App. E, e.g. when he stated that Quenya _h_ was pronounced as _h_ in English house (pronounced with a
            Message 5 of 16 , Jan 6, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              To my note that Tolkien was not always accurate in App. E, e.g.
              when he stated that Quenya _h_ was pronounced as _h_ in
              English 'house' (pronounced with a voiceless glottal fricative)
              and 'behold' (pronounced with a voiced glottal fricative) several
              people responded.

              Doug Pearson wrote:

              > Not in "American" English: both _h_s are voiced and sound identical.

              **I am not a native speaker of English, so I have to basically rely
              on what I read in books. Arthur J. Bronstein in _The Pronunciation
              of American English_ (1960) notes that the _h_ sound is frequently
              voiced in intervocalic position, which I think means that the _h_
              sound is usually voiceless. As an example of voiced intervocalic
              _h_ the authors gives, inter alia, 'behold'.

              Eddin Najetovic wrote:

              > As a matter of fact I am quite certain that in the English spoken in
              > Britain the _h_'es are voiceless in every position, including
              > those between vowels.

              **I took the information about the voiced intervocalic _h_
              in British Southern standard English from the two books
              I mentioned last time, i.e. _The Sounds of the World's
              languages_ by Peter Ladefoged and Ian Maddieson, and
              _Fonetické obrazy hlásek_ by Bohuslav Hála. I remember
              I read it also in one of Daniel Jones' books but since I
              have already returned the book to library I do not remember
              whether it was _An Outline of English Phonetics_ or _The
              Pronunciation of English_ (I will check it if necessary).

              Patrick Wynne wrote:

              >I note that even the OED indicates the pronunciation of the _h_
              >in both 'house' and 'behold' with the same symbol 'h', which the
              >"Key to the Pronunciation" indicates is pronounced as in 'ho!"

              **Yes, you are right. I have checked the OED. I have also
              checked my _Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary_ (2000)
              and here also both words are written using the same character.
              In the section of the book 'Pronunciation and phonetic symbols'
              the _h_ character is said to be pronounced as _h_ in 'hat'.
              The pronunciation of 'hat' is given between two slashes.
              This is what I find essential, because slashes are normally
              used for phonological transcriptions. Pronunciation given like
              this is rather confusing, because it is neither phonetic nor
              phonemic, it is rather quasi- or pseudo-phonemic but of
              course it depends on what is meant by 'phoneme' and
              'phonemic' (generative phonologists, for instance, rejected
              the notion of 'phoneme' as conceived by the Prague school).
              Anyway, what I want to say is that if the pronunciation of both
              'house' and 'behold' is given with one and the same symbol
              _h_, it is rather to indicate that English has only one _h_
              "phoneme" which may be pronounced differently according
              to its position.

              To return to Tolkien's statement. It is questionable what
              Tolkien really meant. He need not have been familiar with the
              fact that English had actually two variants of _h_. Or perhaps
              he did not realize that the _h_ in 'behold' can be pronounced
              differently than in 'house'. We might consider it then as an
              error (even though it does not have to seem so always, we must
              keep in mind that Tolkien was not omniscient and perfect). Yet
              it also depends on how _h_ is actually pronounced in Quenya.
              I suppose that _h_ in e.g. _halla_ "tall" is a voiceless
              glottal spirant but what about its negation *_alahalla_
              "not tall, short"? Perhaps the _h_ was voiced here just like
              in English 'head' vs. 'ahead'.

              [You may be quite certain that Tolkien was intimately aware of
              all the allophonic variations in every major and most minor
              dialects of English. CFH]


              Ales Bican

              ps. Another discrepancy in App. E I mentioned last time
              was the problem of Quenya _hy_, which Tolkien described
              as two similar yet different sounds (a voiceless palatal
              approximant and voiceless palatal fricative). Eddin Najetovic
              agreed with me pointing out that IPA does not even have a
              symbol for the voiceless palatal approximant. Well, the IPA
              does not have a lot of symbols it should have, unfortunately,
              it should have been devised better. But this is not what I want to
              say. What I want is to raise a question: so what is the Quenya _hy_,
              a fricative or approximant? And this concerns also _hw_ -- a voiceless
              labiovelar fricative or voiceless labiovelar approximant?

              --
              What's in a name? That which we call a rose
              by any other name would smell as sweet. (Juliet, _Romeo and Juliet_)
            • Arden R. Smith
              ... Really? I see no examples of a voiceless palatal approximant there. In fact, the examples given in Tolkien s description of Quenya _hy_ in Appendix E are
              Message 6 of 16 , Jan 7, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Ales Bican wrote:

                >ps. Another discrepancy in App. E I mentioned last time
                >was the problem of Quenya _hy_, which Tolkien described
                >as two similar yet different sounds (a voiceless palatal
                >approximant and voiceless palatal fricative).

                Really? I see no examples of a voiceless palatal approximant there.
                In fact, the examples given in Tolkien's description of Quenya _hy_
                in Appendix E are merely a subset of the examples given for [ç]
                ("Voiceless palatal central fricative") by Geoffrey K. Pullum and
                William A. Ladusaw in their _Phonetic Symbol Guide_ (Chicago and
                London: University of Chicago Press, 1986), p. 30:
                "Illustrated by the initial segment of English _hue_ in some
                pronunciations, by the final sound of German _ich_, and by the
                initial segment of Japanese _hito_."

                > Eddin Najetovic
                >agreed with me pointing out that IPA does not even have a
                >symbol for the voiceless palatal approximant. Well, the IPA
                >does not have a lot of symbols it should have, unfortunately,
                >it should have been devised better.

                You speak as though the IPA was graven in stone long ago and is
                therefore impervious to change. The IPA has been revised many times
                in the course of its history, and today's IPA differs in many
                respects from Paul Passy's original 1888 creation. For example, the
                IPA didn't differentiate between the voiced palatal approximant and
                the voiced palatal fricative until *1989*! There's certainly nothing
                preventing the Association Phonétique International from adding a
                symbol for the voiceless palatal approximant, should it be deemed
                necessary. But in the 116-year history of the IPA, it has apparently
                *not* been deemed necessary.

                If you need to express the voiceless palatal approximant in the IPA,
                however, it's already easy enough to do: use [j] with a little
                circle under it (thus voiceless [j]). This is what Ian Maddieson
                does in _Patterns of Sounds_ (Cambridge: Cambridge U. P., 1984), p.
                245. Incidentally, the list that is given there of languages
                containing that sound doesn't contain any likely models for Quenya:
                Malagasy, Yao, Klamath, Otomi, Mazahua, Hopi, and Aleut.



                Postscript: Anyone interested in the history of the IPA should check
                out the following (in addition to the Pullum and Ladusaw book cited
                above):

                Robert William Albright, "The International Phonetic Alphabet: Its
                Backgrounds and Development." _International Journal of American
                Linguistics_ 24 (January 1958).

                Michael K. C. MacMahon, "Phonetic Notation", in: Peter T. Daniels and
                William Bright (eds.), _The World's Writing Systems_. New York and
                Oxford: Oxford U. P., 1996, pp. 821-46.

                Additionally, if you have access to a library with a complete run of
                _Le maître phonétique_, the organ of the Association Phonétique
                International, you can see the alphabet growing and changing right
                before your eyes.

                --
                *********************************************************************
                Arden R. Smith erilaz@...

                Perilme metto aimaktur perperienta.
                --Elvish proverb
                *********************************************************************
              • Ales Bican
                I mentioned that Tolkien s description in App. E of Quenya _hy_ may be two-fold: it may be either an approximant or fricative ... **As j. mach wust already
                Message 7 of 16 , Jan 8, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  I mentioned that Tolkien's description in App. E of Quenya _hy_
                  may be two-fold: it may be either an approximant or fricative
                  according to his description (in my view). Arden R. Smith wrote:

                  >Really? I see no examples of a voiceless palatal approximant there.

                  **As j. 'mach' wust already mentioned, I meant the sound in English
                  'hue' to be a voiceless palatal approximant.

                  >In fact, the examples given in Tolkien's description of Quenya _hy_
                  >in Appendix E are merely a subset of the examples given for [ç]
                  >("Voiceless palatal central fricative") by Geoffrey K. Pullum and
                  >William A. Ladusaw in their _Phonetic Symbol Guide_ (Chicago and
                  >London: University of Chicago Press, 1986), p. 30:
                  >"Illustrated by the initial segment of English _hue_ in some
                  >pronunciations, by the final sound of German _ich_, and by the
                  >initial segment of Japanese _hito_."

                  **According to Ian Maddieson and Peter Ladefoged (_The
                  Sounds of the World's Languages_ (2002, first published in
                  1996) Tolkien described two different sounds: "The onset
                  in [English _hue_] is normally a voiceless palatal approximant,
                  _j_ [written with an underposed circle], for which the IPA
                  has no unitary symbol." (326).

                  I wrote:

                  >>Eddin Najetovic
                  >>agreed with me pointing out that IPA does not even have a
                  >>symbol for the voiceless palatal approximant. Well, the IPA
                  >>does not have a lot of symbols it should have, unfortunately,
                  >>it should have been devised better.

                  Arden:

                  >You speak as though the IPA was graven in stone long ago and is
                  >therefore impervious to change.

                  **Well, I suppose this may be a reading of what I wrote. Next time
                  I should definitely attempt to use better words and phases. -- Of
                  course, I know that the IPA underwent a number of revisions, so
                  basically I wanted to say is that it still needs some revisions
                  to be better.

                  > The IPA has been revised many times
                  >in the course of its history, and today's IPA differs in many
                  >respects from Paul Passy's original 1888 creation. For example, the
                  >IPA didn't differentiate between the voiced palatal approximant and
                  >the voiced palatal fricative until *1989*!

                  **Revisions of the chart are (I suppose) based on current research,
                  so what was not (could not) be differentiated in the past can be
                  differentiated today. I do not know the state of affairs in Tolkien's
                  time but maybe it was not known then that the sounds of Eng.
                  _hue_ and Ger. _ich_ are different and therefore Tolkien did not
                  make any difference between them.

                  > There's certainly nothing
                  >preventing the Association Phonétique International from adding a
                  >symbol for the voiceless palatal approximant, should it be deemed
                  >necessary. But in the 116-year history of the IPA, it has apparently
                  >*not* been deemed necessary.

                  **The IPA is (as far as I can see) good for a language like English
                  but as far as I know Czech phoneticians do not perceive as
                  fitting for Czech, but of course it is also a matter of getting
                  used to it. At any rate a character for r-hacek (and no, it is _not_
                  [r] + [zh] (i.e. the sound in 'pleasure')!) is missing (why?). Also,
                  the way afficates are written in the IPA does not look very pleasing
                  to a Czech eye. Another thing that could be bettered is difference
                  between _þ, ð_ and _s, z_.The former are given dental fricatives
                  and the latter as alveolar fricatives. A distinction should, however,
                  be rather made between sibilant and non-sibilant fricatives, as we
                  can have both dental and alveolar _þ, ð_ and dental and alveolar
                  _s, z_.

                  >If you need to express the voiceless palatal approximant in the IPA,
                  >however, it's already easy enough to do: use [j] with a little
                  >circle under it (thus voiceless [j]).

                  **I know that but I and Eddin (I think) meant that the IPA did not have
                  a unitary symbol for it.

                  > This is what Ian Maddieson
                  >does in _Patterns of Sounds_ (Cambridge: Cambridge U. P., 1984), p.
                  >245. Incidentally, the list that is given there of languages
                  >containing that sound doesn't contain any likely models for Quenya:
                  >Malagasy, Yao, Klamath, Otomi, Mazahua, Hopi, and Aleut.

                  **I do not have access to the book, only to the book I mentioned
                  above, which is from 1996. Since this is newer book, I (not having
                  means to find out by myself) prefer to rely on this one. So if
                  English is said to possess this sound, it is a rather likely model.
                  Personally, however, I am inclined to the fricative (in German _ich_)
                  -- _hy_ (at least phonologically) does not appear as the voiceless
                  counterpart of _y_ in Quenya.

                  By the way, could you give me (us) a list of some languages that are
                  mentioned in "your" book? "My" book only mentions (with a reference
                  to "your" book) that less than 5% of the world's languages include
                  the voiceless palatal fricative in their inventory.


                  Ales Bican

                  --
                  What's in a name? That which we call a rose
                  by any other name would smell as sweet. (Juliet, _Romeo and Juliet_)
                • Arden R. Smith
                  ... Then there s disagreement among phoneticians as to what sound the initial segment of _hue_ really is. I ve already mentioned Pullum and Ladusaw s
                  Message 8 of 16 , Jan 10, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Ales Bican wrote:

                    >**According to Ian Maddieson and Peter Ladefoged (_The
                    >Sounds of the World's Languages_ (2002, first published in
                    >1996) Tolkien described two different sounds: "The onset
                    >in [English _hue_] is normally a voiceless palatal approximant,
                    >_j_ [written with an underposed circle], for which the IPA
                    >has no unitary symbol." (326).

                    Then there's disagreement among phoneticians as to what sound the
                    initial segment of _hue_ really is. I've already mentioned Pullum
                    and Ladusaw's statement from 1986. Furthermore, William G. Moulton
                    says the following in his _The Sounds of English and German_ (Chicago
                    and London: University of Chicago Press, 1962), p. 29:

                    "The initial /h-/ of English /'hju/ _hue_, _Hugh_ [...] is pronounced
                    by many Americans as a [ç] with rather wide opening."

                    My point here is this: If *phoneticians* can't agree what sound
                    appears at the beginning of _hue_, then the distinction between these
                    two sounds must be so minuscule that it is of no practical
                    consequence. So you can go ahead and pronounce _hyarmen_ with a
                    voiceless palatal approximant, and I'll go on pronouncing it with a
                    voiceless palatal fricative, and no one will notice the difference.

                    >By the way, could you give me (us) a list of some languages that are
                    >mentioned in "your" book? "My" book only mentions (with a reference
                    >to "your" book) that less than 5% of the world's languages include
                    >the voiceless palatal fricative in their inventory.

                    I'm guessing that even fewer languages have a voiceless palatal approximant.

                    _Patterns of Sounds_ (p. 231) lists the following languages as having
                    the voiceless palatal fricative: Irish, Norwegian, Bengali, Komi,
                    Margi, Mandarin, Kan, Haida, Kwakw'ala, Paez, and possibly Chuvash.
                    Two things must be borne in mind: (1) This book discusses the
                    *phonologies* of the various languages, so only phonemes are treated
                    here, hence the absence of German (in which Maddieson regards [ç] as
                    an allophone of /x/); (2) The lists are by no means exhaustive (for
                    example, the only Germanic languages included are German and
                    Norwegian).

                    --
                    *********************************************************************
                    Arden R. Smith erilaz@...

                    Perilme metto aimaktur perperienta.
                    --Elvish proverb
                    *********************************************************************
                  • Andreas Johansson
                    ... That, or pronunciation varies from speaker to speaker and/or location to location. It s the kind of minor phonetic variation one expect to see abundantly
                    Message 9 of 16 , Jan 11, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Quoting "Arden R. Smith" <erilaz@...>:

                      > My point here is this: If *phoneticians* can't agree what sound
                      > appears at the beginning of _hue_, then the distinction between these
                      > two sounds must be so minuscule that it is of no practical
                      > consequence.

                      That, or pronunciation varies from speaker to speaker and/or location to
                      location. It's the kind of minor phonetic variation one expect to see
                      abundantly in a language of a few hundred million speakers.

                      Andreas
                    • David Kiltz
                      On 11.01.2004, at 06:20, Arden R. Smith wrote: A.R.Smith says that William G. Moulton says in his _The Sounds of English and German_ (Chicago and London:
                      Message 10 of 16 , Jan 11, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On 11.01.2004, at 06:20, Arden R. Smith wrote:

                        A.R.Smith says that William G. Moulton
                        says in his _The Sounds of English and German_ (Chicago
                        and London: University of Chicago Press, 1962 that Modern Standard
                        German [ç] sounds like the initial sound of _hue_ as pronounced by
                        many Americans. Now there definitely is a difference between the RP
                        _hue_ sound and the German _ich_ sound (_hue_ is slightly more forward)
                        but it's a miniscule difference. Note the fact that English /ç/
                        only occurs before /u/ word initially whereas German /ç/ never does.
                        That may also add to the difference, thus, perhaps, making the
                        difference between the sounds hardly more than a positional one. Still,
                        all Germans I asked (including me) notice and make a clear distinction
                        between English /ç/ and German /ç/ (and it is lab verifiable!).
                        Still, I think it fair to settle on /ç/ for Quenya as Tolkien's
                        examples can be approximations at times.

                        > Maddieson regards [ç] as
                        > an allophone of /x/ (in German).

                        Just for the record: Not only the vocalic environment plays a role here
                        but also morphemes. Cf. _Frauchen_ /frauçen/ vs. _rauchen_ /rauxen/.

                        -David Kiltz
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.