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

Re: [Lambengolmor] Re: Pronunciation and writing of _r_ in Quenya

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.