Re: [Lambengolmor] _hy_ in Quenya (and the IPA)
- 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_**According to Ian Maddieson and Peter Ladefoged (_The
>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_."
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).
>>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**Well, I suppose this may be a reading of what I wrote. Next time
>therefore impervious to change.
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**Revisions of the chart are (I suppose) based on current research,
>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*!
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**The IPA is (as far as I can see) good for a language like English
>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.
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
>If you need to express the voiceless palatal approximant in the IPA,**I know that but I and Eddin (I think) meant that the IPA did not have
>however, it's already easy enough to do: use [j] with a little
>circle under it (thus voiceless [j]).
a unitary symbol for it.
> This is what Ian Maddieson**I do not have access to the book, only to the book I mentioned
>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.
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.
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 wrote:
>**According to Ian Maddieson and Peter Ladefoged (_TheThen there's disagreement among phoneticians as to what sound 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).
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 areI'm guessing that even fewer languages have a voiceless palatal approximant.
>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.
_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
Arden R. Smith erilaz@...
Perilme metto aimaktur perperienta.
- Quoting "Arden R. Smith" <erilaz@...>:
> My point here is this: If *phoneticians* can't agree what soundThat, or pronunciation varies from speaker to speaker and/or location to
> appears at the beginning of _hue_, then the distinction between these
> two sounds must be so minuscule that it is of no practical
location. It's the kind of minor phonetic variation one expect to see
abundantly in a language of a few hundred million speakers.
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/.