does any romance language neutralize the difference between dental and palatal l?
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
l and gl in these two proper names*, or is the difference neutralized
such that both the <li> and <gli> are pronounced the same:
1) Italia
2) Tartaglia
* Notes:
1) tartaglia (starting with a little t) is a common noun meaning
stammerer
2) Being proper names, these are not pronounced only by Italians but
also by other Romance speakers; what I'm asking is whether speakers of
any Romance language, not just Italian, neutralize the difference.
Peter T. Daniels
That's not what "neutralize" means. I suspect you may be asking after
the origin of the two different spellings.
Marco Pagliero
> For example, is a distinction observable between the pronunciations of
> l and gl in these two proper names*, or is the difference neutralized
> such that both the <li> and <gli> are pronounced the same:
> 1) Italia
> 2) Tartaglia
> any Romance language, not just Italian, neutralize the difference.
In Italian it is normally a big difference, even if actually a few
people say Itaglia and a few say Tartalia. The former is generally
considered an error and the latter a speech defect, just like V for R
or F for S.
French people would say routinely Tartag-liá , separating G from L,
but if asked to pronounce it as a group, they seem unable to do so and
say instead anything between a double L and an Y (like their own
double L in Montpeiller => MonpeYé). But in "les Italiens" they say LI
just as LI.
Portuguese pronounce their LH in a very similar way as Italians their
GLI: hear "agulhas" in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZHbeD1OzJQ at
0:11 and 0:13.
About Spaniards, I cannot exactly hear if what they say is SeviGLIa,
but it is anyway more similar to that than a simple SeviYYa or
SevilYa.
Piemontais people (west of north Italy) are perfectly able to
pronounce italian GLI but in the language itself GLI doesn't exist:
Paglia (Hay) => Paja (PaYa), while Italia is ItalYa just as in
Italian. The same eg. in Ventian.
I believe that the roman dialect has neither LI nor GLI and does write
"j" and say Y for both (Itaja, tartaja) . This would be the only
example of an identification or equalisation of both sounds.
Ciao
Marco P
Harlan Messinger
> On 16 Nov., 14:06, ranjit_mathews wrote:
>> For example, is a distinction observable between the pronunciations of
>> l and gl in these two proper names*, or is the difference neutralized
>> such that both the <li> and <gli> are pronounced the same:
>> 1) Italia
>> 2) Tartaglia
>> ...what I'm asking is whether speakers of
>> any Romance language, not just Italian, neutralize the difference.
>
> In Italian it is normally a big difference, even if actually a few
> people say Itaglia and a few say Tartalia. The former is generally
> considered an error and the latter a speech defect, just like V for R
> or F for S.
>
> but if asked to pronounce it as a group, they seem unable to do so and
> say instead anything between a double L and an Y (like their own
> just as LI.
Really? Because they have no problem saying their own word, "alliance".
Ekkehard Dengler
How is that relevant? "Alliance" does not contain the palatal lateral you
need for "Tartaglia".
Regards,
Ekkehard
Harlan Messinger
It's relevant in that I'm questioning that French people would leave out
the lateral altogether because they have no trouble with a lateral in
that position.
By the way, could any of you please explain for us what IS the
difference between the way Italians say -aglia and the way they say
-alia? I don't think it's a matter of syllabification because AIUI -glia
and -lia are both one syllable. Is it palatalization of the /l/?
António Marques
> Ekkehard Dengler wrote:
>> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>>> Marco Pagliero wrote:
>>>> On 16 Nov., 14:06, ranjit_mathews wrote:
>>>>> For example, is a distinction observable between the pronunciations
>>>>> of l and gl in these two proper names*, or is the difference
>>>>> neutralized such that both the <li> and <gli> are pronounced the
>>>>> same: 1) Italia
>>>>> 2) Tartaglia
>>>>> ...what I'm asking is whether speakers of
>>>>> any Romance language, not just Italian, neutralize the difference.
>>>> In Italian it is normally a big difference, even if actually a few
>>>> people say Itaglia and a few say Tartalia. The former is generally
>>>> considered an error and the latter a speech defect, just like V for R
>>>> or F for S.
>>>>
>>>> but if asked to pronounce it as a group, they seem unable to do so
>>>> and say instead anything between a double L and an Y (like their own
>>>> LI just as LI.
>>> Really? Because they have no problem saying their own word,
>>> "alliance".
>>
>> How is that relevant? "Alliance" does not contain the palatal lateral you
>> need for "Tartaglia".
>
> It's relevant in that I'm questioning that French people would leave out
> the lateral altogether because they have no trouble with a lateral in
> that position.
>
> By the way, could any of you please explain for us what IS the
> difference between the way Italians say -aglia and the way they say
> -alia? I don't think it's a matter of syllabification because AIUI -glia
> and -lia are both one syllable. Is it palatalization of the /l/?
I find this whole thread very strange.
Marco Pagliero
> It's relevant in that I'm questioning that French people would leave out
> the lateral altogether because they have no trouble with a lateral in
> that position.
"li" in "italiens" the same way I say it, but they don't say the "gli"
in "tartaglia" the same way I say it. If they have no trouble with
alliance they have trouble with tartaglia, and probably they are not
unable to say it, but they _hear_ only the L and not the G, or what
the G is meant to indicate.
> By the way, could any of you please explain for us what IS the
> difference between the way Italians say -aglia and the way they say
> -alia? I don't think it's a matter of syllabification because AIUI -glia
> and -lia are both one syllable. Is it palatalization of the /l/?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
IANAL, I'm not a linguist, so I cannot explain it to you. In
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zb-IdMFbIs
she says at 0:6 "realizzazione di una maglia blu molto semplice". This
"aglia" is for me very different from the "allia" in alliance. The
"lh" in portuguese sounds for me similar to it, also the λί in
Μπουμπουλίνα as it is pronounced in Athens: something like
"Bubuglina".
If you hear only "mallia" or "malia" no problem, most french, german
and other people do the same. Most Italians don't hear the H in
"human" and "hostage" at all, for example.
Marco P
Harlan Messinger
> On 17 Nov., 17:42, Harlan Messinger wrote:
>> It's relevant in that I'm questioning that French people would leave out
>> the lateral altogether because they have no trouble with a lateral in
>> that position.
> I don't understand what you mean. I said that french people say the
> "li" in "italiens" the same way I say it, but they don't say the "gli"
> in "tartaglia" the same way I say it.
You said they use a sound as in--you used the phonetic rendering
"MonpeYé". In other words, with no lateral at all. But since they have
words of their own like "alliance" where they have a lateral, there's no
reason why they would leave the lateral out in pronouncing an Italian
word, even if it isn't the same lateral as the Italian word.
If they have no trouble with
> alliance they have trouble with tartaglia, and probably they are not
> unable to say it, but they _hear_ only the L and not the G, or what
> the G is meant to indicate.
You're muddying the conversation by confusing the spelling with the
sound. There is no G in the pronunciation at all, and the letter "g"
doesn't represent a sound that's separate from and in addition to the
sound represented by the "l": the two letters "gl" together represent a
single sound.
Trond Engen
> Marco Pagliero wrote:
>
>> On 17 Nov., 17:42, Harlan Messinger wrote:
>>
>>> It's relevant in that I'm questioning that French people would
>>> leave out the lateral altogether because they have no trouble with
>>> a lateral in that position.
>>
>> I don't understand what you mean. I said that french people say the
>> "li" in "italiens" the same way I say it, but they don't say the
>> "gli" in "tartaglia" the same way I say it.
>
> You said they use a sound as in--you used the phonetic rendering
> "MonpeYé". In other words, with no lateral at all. But since they
> have words of their own like "alliance" where they have a lateral,
> there's no reason why they would leave the lateral out in pronouncing
> an Italian word, even if it isn't the same lateral as the Italian
> word.
Why can't it be that to French speakers the palatal lateral (or lateral
with a palatal off-glide, or whatever) sounds more like a palatal
approximant (or on-glide, or something)? Since also Italian <-gl-> and
French <-(i)ll-> are cognates, one might suspect that variation within
French is playing a part in the phonemization.
>> If they have no trouble with alliance they have trouble with
>> tartaglia, and probably they are not unable to say it, but they
>> _hear_ only the L and not the G, or what the G is meant to indicate.
>
> You're muddying the conversation by confusing the spelling with the
> sound. There is no G in the pronunciation at all, and the letter "g"
> doesn't represent a sound that's separate from and in addition to the
> sound represented by the "l": the two letters "gl" together represent
> a single sound.
Or at least a single phoneme. Still, the <g> represents _something_ that
sets it apart from its minimal partner.
--
Trond Engen
Marco Pagliero
> You said they use a sound as in--you used the phonetic rendering
> "MonpeYé". In other words, with no lateral at all. But since they have
> words of their own like "alliance" where they have a lateral, there's no
> reason why they would leave the lateral out in pronouncing an Italian
> word, even if it isn't the same lateral as the Italian word.
Tartaglia but my own name contains a gli and when I was living in
France it was a routine joke that they generally cannot say it. I
don't know for what reason, but confronted with my sounding of "gli"
they try with "paYero", "pag-liero" or "pajero" (french J), but they
_never_ try with "paliero".
So you are right: if they did hear an L they probably would say it,
and as they don't, they probably don't hear any L.
> You're muddying the conversation by confusing the spelling with the
> sound. There is no G in the pronunciation at all, and the letter "g"
> doesn't represent a sound that's separate from and in addition to the
> sound represented by the "l": the two letters "gl" together represent a
> single sound.
Sorry for the mud, and I consider it also to be a single sound, but
the G in the spelling _is_ "meant to indicate" something: that the L
in the spelling is not an L as a sound. And maybe there is no trace of
the sound G in "gli", but I was just mumbling repeatedly "pag-lee-ah-
row" and interestingly I remarked that this sound G does modify the
sound of the following L in the right direction if I only speak as if
I had some water in my mouth.
Marco P
Ruud Harmsen
in sci.lang:
>Or at least a single phoneme. Still, the <g> represents _something_ that
>sets it apart from its minimal partner.
There is no g, that's merely a spelling convention, nothing else.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.eu
Ruud Harmsen
<mar...@web.de>: in sci.lang:
>Sorry for the mud, and I consider it also to be a single sound, but
>the G in the spelling _is_ "meant to indicate" something: that the L
>in the spelling is not an L as a sound. And maybe there is no trace of
>the sound G in "gli",
Maybe not? Certainly not! <gl> before <i> or <e> in Italian represents
a palatal l, same as what's written <lh> in Portuguese and <ll> is
some types of Spanish. That's all there is to it.
>but I was just mumbling repeatedly "pag-lee-ah-
>row" and interestingly I remarked that this sound G does modify the
>sound of the following L in the right direction if I only speak as if
>I had some water in my mouth.
Of course. Velar as seen from dental or alveolar gets past palatal.
But that doesn't mean that palatal sounds have anything velar to them.
Marco Pagliero
> Maybe not? Certainly not! <gl> before <i> or <e> in Italian represents
> a palatal l, same as what's written <lh> in Portuguese and <ll> is
> some types of Spanish. That's all there is to it.
Only before <i>, not before <e>.
Ruud Harmsen
<mar...@web.de>: in sci.lang:
>On 18 Nov., 00:29, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
OK. My Italian is almost non-existent.
António Marques
This brings me to a question:
- the trigraph <gli> represents /L/
- but /Li/ is simply <gli>, not <glii>
- so *how* does one write /Li/ plus another vowel? does it even exist,
or there is only /L/ plus vowel, not /Li/ plus vowel? Is it written
the same?
Marco Pagliero
> On 18 Nov, 00:13, Marco Pagliero wrote:
> > Only before <i>, not before <e>.
> This brings me to a question:
> - the trigraph <gli> represents /L/
> - but /Li/ is simply <gli>, not <glii>
> - so *how* does one write /Li/ plus another vowel? does it even exist,
> or there is only /L/ plus vowel, not /Li/ plus vowel? Is it written
> the same?
with a following i, I believe they have all been elided at the
beginning of the XIXth century.
(Except maybe in pagliuzza, one can, must not, avoid to pronounce the
i, so one could consider it just a diacritical in this case, like the
h in chi, che, ghi, ghe.)
Exceptions with separated "g-li": negligente, ganglio, geroglífico,
nevroglía, glifo, glicerina and a few more.
gle, gla, glo, glu are always pronounced as three sounds, not two.
So maybe this is not a tri- but a digraph with two pronounciations,
one before i and one before the rest. Or it is a trigraph with elision
of a following i. Dunno.
Greetings
Marco P
Ekkehard Dengler
French did have a palateral lateral at one point, which is why the sound
written <ill> or <il> is still referred to as "l mouill�", even though in
reality it is now a semivowel, as in the word "mouill�" itself. This is
different from the <lli> in "alliance", though, which represents two
successive sounds.
> By the way, could any of you please explain for us what IS the
> difference between the way Italians say -aglia and the way they say
> -alia? I don't think it's a matter of syllabification because AIUI
> -glia and -lia are both one syllable. Is it palatalization of the /l/?
The <gli> in "Tartaglia" represents a palatal (not a palatalised) lateral,
which means a single lateral articulated with the tongue touching the hard
palate, not two successive or coarticulated sounds. It's also usually
geminated, as far as I know, but that's another matter.
Regards,
Ekkehard
wugi
> French people would say routinely Tartag-liá , separating G from L,
> but if asked to pronounce it as a group, they seem unable to do so and
> say instead anything between a double L and an Y (like their own
> double L in Montpeiller => MonpeYé). But in "les Italiens" they say LI
> just as LI.
I'm not sure if some French say it this way, but I only know
Montpellier as "Monpelyé".
> About Spaniards, I cannot exactly hear if what they say is SeviGLIa,
> but it is anyway more similar to that than a simple SeviYYa or
> SevilYa.
There would be quite some variation (see another thread), but actually
there is in Italy too, from what you said.
> Piemontais people (west of north Italy) are perfectly able to
> pronounce italian GLI but in the language itself GLI doesn't exist:
> Paglia (Hay) => Paja (PaYa), while Italia is ItalYa just as in
> Italian.
Is it? I would have thought rather like Italiya (Slavic languages are
more punctual in this, eg: Italija), Italya being a "faster" way.
As for the distinction between the latter (in Italian I would expect
"Italja") and a more palatal "Itaglia": I hear a difference not only
in the l-sound, but also in the preceding vowel which gets an i-glide
(except for i itself, surely:-).
Similar distinctions exist in Dutch:
Spanje ~ spañë
(dan) span je ~ span-yë
Brittannië ~ britaniyë (most Flemings ignore this saying britañë)
compare
Bretagne ~ brëtañë
Peter T. Daniels
> On 17 nov, 15:49, Marco Pagliero <mart...@web.de> wrote:
> > Piemontais people (west of north Italy) are perfectly able to
> > pronounce italian GLI but in the language itself GLI doesn't exist:
> > Paglia (Hay) => Paja (PaYa), while Italia is ItalYa just as in
> > Italian.
>
> Is it? I would have thought rather like Italiya (Slavic languages are
> more punctual in this, eg: Italija), Italya being a "faster" way.
punctilious (what made you think of this word? is it more usual in
Dutch [I suppose I should say Flemish] than in English?)
António Marques
> On 18 Nov., 02:56, António Marques wrote:
>> On 18 Nov, 00:13, Marco Pagliero wrote:
>>> Only before<i>, not before<e>.
>> This brings me to a question:
>> - the trigraph<gli> represents /L/
>> - but /Li/ is simply<gli>, not<glii>
>> - so *how* does one write /Li/ plus another vowel? does it even exist,
>> or there is only /L/ plus vowel, not /Li/ plus vowel? Is it written
>> the same?
> Famiglia, maglieria, coniglio, pagliuzza. I don't know any example
> with a following i, I believe they have all been elided at the
> beginning of the XIXth century.
>
> (Except maybe in pagliuzza, one can, must not, avoid to pronounce the
> i, so one could consider it just a diacritical in this case, like the
> h in chi, che, ghi, ghe.)
So when you say pagliuzza, do you pronounce an [i] or not?
wugi
> On Nov 18, 8:17 am, wugi <w...@scarlet.be> wrote:
>
> > On 17 nov, 15:49, Marco Pagliero <mart...@web.de> wrote:
> > > Piemontais people (west of north Italy) are perfectly able to
> > > pronounce italian GLI but in the language itself GLI doesn't exist:
> > > Paglia (Hay) => Paja (PaYa), while Italia is ItalYa just as in
> > > Italian.
>
> > Is it? I would have thought rather like Italiya (Slavic languages are
> > more punctual in this, eg: Italija), Italya being a "faster" way.
>
> punctilious (what made you think of this word? is it more usual in
French ponctuel I guess. But I wasn't feeling sure in any language and
felt "confounded" anyway :-)
> Dutch [I suppose I should say Flemish] than in English?)
Wasn't thinking of Dutch punctueel (seldom heard), but rather three or
four "native" words or expressions ("pietje precies", "pierrot
precisely"). Does punctilious have a negative connotation as I learnt
of French pointilleux today?
BTW would you agree that English has palatalised L? The other day it
"came to me" that one can be heard in, say, "full", making it
(perhaps) one of three realisations of L in English.
Peter T. Daniels
> On 18 nov, 14:42, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 18, 8:17 am, wugi <w...@scarlet.be> wrote:
>
> > > On 17 nov, 15:49, Marco Pagliero <mart...@web.de> wrote:
> > > > Piemontais people (west of north Italy) are perfectly able to
> > > > pronounce italian GLI but in the language itself GLI doesn't exist:
> > > > Paglia (Hay) => Paja (PaYa), while Italia is ItalYa just as in
> > > > Italian.
>
> > > Is it? I would have thought rather like Italiya (Slavic languages are
> > > more punctual in this, eg: Italija), Italya being a "faster" way.
>
> > punctilious (what made you think of this word? is it more usual in
>
> French ponctuel I guess. But I wasn't feeling sure in any language and
> felt "confounded" anyway :-)
>
> > Dutch [I suppose I should say Flemish] than in English?)
>
> Wasn't thinking of Dutch punctueel (seldom heard), but rather three or
> four "native" words or expressions ("pietje precies", "pierrot
> precisely"). Does punctilious have a negative connotation as I learnt
> of French pointilleux today?
'very precise' or 'overly precise' or 'following the law in every jot
and tittle' -- which could be seen as a Good Thing in some
environments.
> BTW would you agree that English has palatalised L? The other day it
> "came to me" that one can be heard in, say, "full", making it
> (perhaps) one of three realisations of L in English.
I'm sure you get a palatal L in "million" (lots of folk don't even
bother with the lateralization in such words), but why would you
expect it in "full"?
wugi
Well, not palatal, but how is the "color" of the L named which
distinguishes between dark and (?)bright/light... L?
An example of a range I perceive going from darker to lighter:
E. all - Pt. geral (where L pronounced) - Du. al - Sp. igual - Sp.
general - Germ. all.
E. full in this range I'd put together with German All, Bulle (If
Exists).
E. bill, bell seem to me less dark than all, but darker than full.
Germ. all, like E. full, do sound quite palatal-ish to me, if not yet
combining with the Y-sound, but tending to affect the preceding vowel
allright.
Marco Pagliero
> So when you say pagliuzza, do you pronounce an [i] or not?
[i].
In their opinion all Italians and me too do pronounce always an [i]
after [gl]. Only after living long time abroad I began to suspect that
it is possible at all to say maglia without any [i] between [gl] and
[a]. And that possibly even Italians perform routinely such a deed,
certainly without ever noticing.
This is an analogous case as the long/short vowel question: Italians
don't know long and short vowels, they don't hear them, they don't use
them, they have no idea of what a long/short vowel could look like and
grammars confirm explicitly this fact. Italian grammars, that is. But
I hear that German written italian grammars are full of rules about
when, where and how one uses a long, a short, an half short vowel in
Italian.
So this must be another thing Italians do without noticing when they
speak. Or maybe are Germans wasting a lot of time for something that
is completely irrelevant when they speak to Italian people. (Which
time they could productively spend for two topics that _are_ relevant
when speaking to italian people but that they ignore rather
completely: open vs close vowel, and double consonants.)
Greetings
Marco P
Marco Pagliero
> I'm not sure if some French say it this way, but I only know
> Montpellier as "Monpelyé".
I'd have better taken "mouillé" or so.
> ..
> Is it? I would have thought rather like Italiya (Slavic languages are
> more punctual in this, eg: Italija), Italya being a "faster" way.
> As for the distinction between the latter (in Italian I would expect
> "Italja") and a more palatal "Itaglia": I hear a difference not only
> in the l-sound, but also in the preceding vowel which gets an i-glide
> (except for i itself, surely:-).
just like the one in french "figure" and not like the one in german
"mayo" or italian "maiale". As to Slavic languages, I know how to
write Yugoslavija, Slovenija and Ljublijana, but I cannot say that
this [ij] sounds to me especially long or palatized or consonantized
or how they call it. But ..
But I fear my ears are not so acute as yours and that we are walking
far beyond my sensibility threshold, so what I did say is probably of
no value, sorry. Too bad that we don't have here a trained italian
linguist.
Greetings
Marco P
PaulJK
> On 18 nov, 14:42, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 18, 8:17 am, wugi <w...@scarlet.be> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17 nov, 15:49, Marco Pagliero <mart...@web.de> wrote:
>>>> Piemontais people (west of north Italy) are perfectly able to
>>>> pronounce italian GLI but in the language itself GLI doesn't exist:
>>>> Paglia (Hay) => Paja (PaYa), while Italia is ItalYa just as in
>>>> Italian.
>>
>>> Is it? I would have thought rather like Italiya (Slavic languages are
>>> more punctual in this, eg: Italija), Italya being a "faster" way.
>>
>> punctilious (what made you think of this word? is it more usual in
>
> French ponctuel I guess. But I wasn't feeling sure in any language and
> felt "confounded" anyway :-)
It does have some negative connotations down here too.
I hope what you wanted to imply was "accurate", rather
than "verisimilar". :-)
pjk
PaulJK
> On 18 Nov., 14:17, wugi wrote:
>> I'm not sure if some French say it this way, but I only know
> You are right, I checked it today and they say it this way.
>> ..
>> Is it? I would have thought rather like Italiya (Slavic languages are
>> more punctual in this, eg: Italija), Italya being a "faster" way.
>> As for the distinction between the latter (in Italian I would expect
>> "Italja") and a more palatal "Itaglia": I hear a difference not only
>> in the l-sound, but also in the preceding vowel which gets an i-glide
>> (except for i itself, surely:-).
> I could say that in my opinion, the [i] in "italiano" and "paja" is
> just like the one in french "figure" and not like the one in german
> "mayo" or italian "maiale". As to Slavic languages, I know how to
> write Yugoslavija, Slovenija and Ljublijana, but I cannot say that
By the way, as far as I know there is no <i> or [i] in Ljubljana.
I've learned three Slavic languages but never any Slovenian.
However, I am reasonably sure they don't have an <i> in that
name either.
pjk
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> This is an analogous case as the long/short vowel question: Italians
> don't know long and short vowels, they don't hear them, they don't use
> them, they have no idea of what a long/short vowel could look like and
> grammars confirm explicitly this fact. Italian grammars, that is. But
> I hear that German written italian grammars are full of rules about
> when, where and how one uses a long, a short, an half short vowel in
> Italian.
>
> So this must be another thing Italians do without noticing when they
> speak. Or maybe are Germans wasting a lot of time for something that
> is completely irrelevant when they speak to Italian people.
Burriesci is [bu:r.j@Ci:] or [bu:r.j@Ci], depending on what follows
it, to my ear. An Italian with that name would find it very odd to be
called [bur.r.je:Ci]. So, length of vowels seems far from irrelevant
when learning to speak to Italian people.
> (Which
> time they could productively spend for two topics that _are_ relevant
> when speaking to italian people but that they ignore rather
> completely: open vs close vowel,
Americans ordering a Vente at Starbucks can be found opening the first
vowel and closing the second, making it [vEnti].
> and double consonants.)
Length of consonants is relevant too but since they are doubled in
writing, grammars don't need to be full of rules about when they are
long; grammars only need to simply state that a double consonant in
writing is a long consonant in speech.
> Greetings
> Marco P
Andrew Woode
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Length of consonants is relevant too but since they are doubled in
> writing, grammars don't need to be full of rules about when they are
> long; grammars only need to simply state that a double consonant in
> writing is a long consonant in speech.
Unless you want to do the 'syntactic doubling', technically a part of
standard Italian, by which the initial consonants of some words are
doubled in speech but not in writing ("la casa" with single /k/ vs. "a
casa" with /kk/, if memory serves). Though I believe that not all
Italians follow these rules.
Peter T. Daniels
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 5:04 pm, Marco Pagliero <mart...@web.de> wrote:
>
> > This is an analogous case as the long/short vowel question: Italians
> > don't know long and short vowels, they don't hear them, they don't use
> > them, they have no idea of what a long/short vowel could look like and
> > grammars confirm explicitly this fact. Italian grammars, that is. But
> > I hear that German written italian grammars are full of rules about
> > when, where and how one uses a long, a short, an half short vowel in
> > Italian.
>
> > So this must be another thing Italians do without noticing when they
> > speak. Or maybe are Germans wasting a lot of time for something that
> > is completely irrelevant when they speak to Italian people.
>
> Burriesci is [bu:r.j@Ci:] or [bu:r.j@Ci], depending on what follows
> it, to my ear. An Italian with that name would find it very odd to be
> called [bur.r.je:Ci]. So, length of vowels seems far from irrelevant
> when learning to speak to Italian people.
>
> > (Which
> > time they could productively spend for two topics that _are_ relevant
> > when speaking to italian people but that they ignore rather
> > completely: open vs close vowel,
>
> Americans ordering a Vente at Starbucks can be found opening the first
> vowel and closing the second, making it [vEnti].
Does /ey/ occur finally unstressed?
What does Poe rhyme "Nepenthe" with in "The Raven"?
Ans.: Nothing. It occurs in the middle of two lines that aren't at the
beginning of a stanza.
> > and double consonants.)
>
> Length of consonants is relevant too but since they are doubled in
> writing, grammars don't need to be full of rules about when they are
> long; grammars only need to simply state that a double consonant in
> writing is a long consonant in speech.
So writing is prior to speech?
You seem to be confirming my initial observation, which no one took
up, that you are inquiring about Italian _orthography_ and not about
Italian pronunciation at all.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
Possibly, for Germans learning Italian.
Jim Heckman
On 18-Nov-2009, Marco Pagliero <mar...@web.de>
wrote in message
<7586534d-ebbe-403f...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>:
[...]
> This is an analogous case as the long/short vowel question: Italians
> don't know long and short vowels, they don't hear them, they don't use
> them, they have no idea of what a long/short vowel could look like and
> grammars confirm explicitly this fact. Italian grammars, that is. But
> I hear that German written italian grammars are full of rules about
> when, where and how one uses a long, a short, an half short vowel in
> Italian.
>
> So this must be another thing Italians do without noticing when they
> speak. Or maybe are Germans wasting a lot of time for something that
> is completely irrelevant when they speak to Italian people. (Which
> time they could productively spend for two topics that _are_ relevant
> when speaking to italian people but that they ignore rather
> completely: open vs close vowel, and double consonants.)
Is it possible the German-language Italian grammars are using
length as a proxy for open vs. close vowels? Isn't it the case that
in many (most?) dialects of German, including Hochdeutsch, there's
a high correlation between the two? That is, for those dialects the
mid vowels in the core phonology are [o:], [O], [e:] and [E] (plus
[E:] for those speakers who distinguish long <�> from long <e>?).
--
Jim Heckman
Jim Heckman
On 18-Nov-2009, wugi <wu...@scarlet.be>
wrote in message
<f744ca50-2ca0-4ec4...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>:
> On 18 nov, 22:08, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 18, 3:59 pm, wugi <w...@scarlet.be> wrote:
> >
> > > BTW would you agree that English has palatalised L? The other day it
> > > "came to me" that one can be heard in, say, "full", making it
> > > (perhaps) one of three realisations of L in English.
> >
> > I'm sure you get a palatal L in "million" (lots of folk don't even
> > bother with the lateralization in such words), but why would you
> > expect it in "full"?
>
> Well, not palatal, but how is the "color" of the L named which
> distinguishes between dark and (?)bright/light... L?
The "dark" L is velarized: [l~] in Kirshenbaum ASCII IPA.
Velarization is in a sense almost the opposite of palatalization;
in the former the back of the tongue is raised towards the soft
palate simultaneously with the primary articulation, while in the
latter the front of the tongue is raised towards the hard palate.
> An example of a range I perceive going from darker to lighter:
> E. all - Pt. geral (where L pronounced) - Du. al - Sp. igual - Sp.
> general - Germ. all.
> E. full in this range I'd put together with German All, Bulle (If
> Exists).
> E. bill, bell seem to me less dark than all, but darker than full.
> Germ. all, like E. full, do sound quite palatal-ish to me, if not yet
> combining with the Y-sound, but tending to affect the preceding vowel
> allright.
That strikes me as a very strange perception of the /l/ in English
"full". Being velarized, it should sound as if accompanied by an
unrounded [w], not a [j] as if it were palatalized.
--
Jim Heckman
Marco Pagliero
> Burriesci is [bu:r.j@Ci:] or [bu:r.j@Ci], depending on what follows
> it, to my ear. An Italian with that name would find it very odd to be
> called [bur.r.je:Ci]. So, length of vowels seems far from irrelevant
> when learning to speak to Italian people.
it found it odd to be called [bur.r.je:Ci], maybe he didn't hear the
difference in length but he was reacting instead to some other quality
of the sounds which yourself don't register / recognize.
If : in your examples means long, the fact that the final [i] can be
indifferently short or long suggests that the difference has no
audible relevance, and whether Miss Burriesci would find it very odd
if the first u is long instead of short, is the question we are trying
to answer now. My point was that maybe Italians produce consistently
short and long vowels but that they don't hear them anyway so that the
difference has neither emotional nor semantic relevance.
But she would find it odd if the [r] is a single one or somehow longer
but not stressed enough.
> Americans ordering a Vente at Starbucks can be found opening the first
> vowel and closing the second, making it [vEnti].
Sorry, I don't know the meaning of Vente nor of Starbucks.
<edit>I googled. It seems to be a standard joke, and Vente doesn't
exist in Italian. If 20 is meant, it is "venti", pronounced ['venti] .
I hope we have not to discuss the Italian pronounciation of Americans</
edit>
> Length of consonants is relevant too but since they are doubled in
> writing, grammars don't need to be full of rules about when they are
> long; grammars only need to simply state that a double consonant in
> writing is a long consonant in speech.
Regrettably a long consonant in German seems not to sound the same as
an Italian double one, so simply to state that will be of no help.
These long consonants are maybe too short or possibly the temporal
lenght of a consonant has no meaning at all and what counts in Italian
is the pressure of the tongue against the palate. Anyway a beginners
double consonant ist disturbing pale/slim/weak/short but if asked to
correct this, the beginner will probably stretch the preceding vowel
instead.
Ciao
Marco P
Marco Pagliero
> On 18-Nov-2009, Marco Pagliero <mart...@web.de>
> wrote in message
> <7586534d-ebbe-403f-ab7f-778956c25...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>:
It is possible that they do that, although it does seem to be wasted
time, but I cannot give you a meaningful answer because as I said we
are reaching regions beyond the acuity of my ears and the
possibilities of my (not existent) linguistic training. Sorry.
Marco P
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
Starbucks is a chain of coffee shops. I'm mistaken that a little (by
US standards) cup is a Vente. The big one is called a Grande.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_a_venti_size_at_starbucks_contain_20_ounces
> > Length of consonants is relevant too but since they are doubled in
> > writing, grammars don't need to be full of rules about when they are
> > long; grammars only need to simply state that a double consonant in
> > writing is a long consonant in speech.
>
> Regrettably a long consonant in German seems not to sound the same as
> an Italian double one,
Bitte.
Marco Pagliero
> On Nov 19, 10:56 pm, Marco Pagliero <mart...@web.de> wrote:
> > Regrettably a long consonant in German seems not to sound the same as
> > an Italian double one,
> Bitte.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemination_(Sprache)
This whole page is about the fact that the sole and only function of
written double consonants in German is to show the length of the
preceding vowel, without phonetical significance in itself.
"Beispiel fürs Deutsche: Hameln bzw. Hammeln. In Hameln ist das a also
lang, in Hammeln ist es kurz; das m wird jedoch gleich ausgesprochen."
That is: A German example: Hameln resp. Hammeln. In Hameln the [a] is
long, in Hammeln it is short; but _the [m] is pronounced just the
same_.
Well, first this is wikipedia and second I feel that Germans actually
do _not_ pronounce this [m] just the same. And I will even concede
that in a very acrid "Ich BITTE dich!" they do produce a really double
[t]. But apart from that I would agree that most spoken doubles in
German are only suggested.
Ciao
Marco P
Marco Pagliero
> By the way, as far as I know there is no <i> or [i] in Ljubljana.
> I've learned three Slavic languages but never any Slovenian.
> However, I am reasonably sure they don't have an <i> in that
> name either.
Marco P
wugi
> On 18-Nov-2009, wugi <w...@scarlet.be>
> > > I'm sure you get a palatal L in "million" (lots of folk don't even
> > > bother with the lateralization in such words), but why would you
> > > expect it in "full"?
>
> > Well, not palatal, but how is the "color" of the L named which
> > distinguishes between dark and (?)bright/light... L?
>
> The "dark" L is velarized: [l~] in Kirshenbaum ASCII IPA.
> Velarization is in a sense almost the opposite of palatalization;
> in the former the back of the tongue is raised towards the soft
> palate simultaneously with the primary articulation, while in the
> latter the front of the tongue is raised towards the hard palate.
Thanks. In addition I perceive that velarising includes a tendancy to
open the lower cheek, palatalising to close it...
> > An example of a range I perceive going from darker to lighter:
> > E. all - Pt. geral (where L pronounced) - Du. al - Sp. igual - Sp.
> > general - Germ. all.
> > E. full in this range I'd put together with German All, Bulle (If
> > Exists).
> > E. bill, bell seem to me less dark than all, but darker than full.
> > Germ. all, like E. full, do sound quite palatal-ish to me, if not yet
> > combining with the Y-sound, but tending to affect the preceding vowel
> > allright.
>
> That strikes me as a very strange perception of the /l/ in English
> "full". Being velarized, it should sound as if accompanied by an
> unrounded [w], not a [j] as if it were palatalized.
... so that, with preceding u, unlike the a of all, the lower cheek is
in rather closed position, making velarish tongue point position
"meeting" palatalish tongue back position. That's what I think I hear
at least.
wugi
> wugi wrote:
> >>> Is it? I would have thought rather like Italiya (Slavic languages are
> >>> more punctual in this, eg: Italija), Italya being a "faster" way.
>
> >> punctilious (what made you think of this word? is it more usual in
>
> > French ponctuel I guess. But I wasn't feeling sure in any language and
> > felt "confounded" anyway :-)
>
> It does have some negative connotations down here too.
> I hope what you wanted to imply was "accurate", rather
> than "verisimilar". :-)
I guess I did :-)
Though the -ija or -iya spelling may consequently be thought of as
"closer" to the truth, than the -ia one. And I didn't know of
verisimilar being a meaning of either punctual or punctilious.
wugi
> On 18 Nov., 14:17, wugi wrote:
> I'm not sure if some French say it this way, but I only know
> > Montpellier as "Monpelyé".
> You are right, I checked it today and they say it this way.
You had me scared ;-)
> I'd have better taken "mouillé" or so.> ..
> > Is it? I would have thought rather like Italiya (Slavic languages are
> > more punctual in this, eg: Italija), Italya being a "faster" way.
> > As for the distinction between the latter (in Italian I would expect
> > "Italja") and a more palatal "Itaglia": I hear a difference not only
> > in the l-sound, but also in the preceding vowel which gets an i-glide
> > (except for i itself, surely:-).
>
> I could say that in my opinion, the [i] in "italiano" and "paja" is
> just like the one in french "figure" and not like the one in german
> "mayo" or italian "maiale". As to Slavic languages, I know how to
> write Yugoslavija, Slovenija and Ljublijana, but I cannot say that
> this [ij] sounds to me especially long or palatized or consonantized
> or how they call it.
Not long, but an i-vowel followed (not swallowed) by a j-liaison.
Another test: do you consider "Italia" as a 3 or as a 4 syllable word?
Marco Pagliero
> Not long, but an i-vowel followed (not swallowed) by a j-liaison.
it. Doesn't prove anything, next time I'll ask what her own opinion
is. Maybe they are really more punctilious.
(But I seem to remember that she explained me once that this sign "ij"
in Yugoslavija and Slovenija doesn't represent two vowels in
pronounciation, but it was a typographical artifice to set an "y" when
you have none in the char set. Possibly some old urban legend.)
> Another test: do you consider "Italia" as a 3 or as a 4 syllable word?
They must be three, because 1) diphthongs belong always to the same
syllable and 2) end syllables consisting only of vowels are forbidden.
Marco P
PaulJK
I am a collector of esoteric expressions, I only wish I spent more
time learning correct English spelling when I was younger.
Verisimilitude, the appearance or semblance of truth or reality;
something that merely seems to be true or real, such as a doubtful
statement.
Isn't that the slippery shady slope of the punctiliousness? :-)
pjk
PaulJK
> On 20 Nov., 23:20, wugi wrote:
>> Not long, but an i-vowel followed (not swallowed) by a j-liaison.
> I know a Slovenian and I hear only an [i], not an [ij] when she says
> it. Doesn't prove anything, next time I'll ask what her own opinion
> is. Maybe they are really more punctilious.
> (But I seem to remember that she explained me once that this sign "ij"
> in Yugoslavija and Slovenija doesn't represent two vowels in
> pronounciation, but it was a typographical artifice to set an "y" when
> you have none in the char set. Possibly some old urban legend.)
You mean like <bakkerij> in Dutch?
Some Czech medieval scribes also used <ij> to represent an ypsilon.
So it might be not so impossible to appear in Slavic languages
especially in one so closely related like Slovene.
>> Another test: do you consider "Italia" as a 3 or as a 4 syllable word?
>
> They must be three, because 1) diphthongs belong always to the same
> syllable and 2) end syllables consisting only of vowels are forbidden.
I presume you talk about syllabification in English. Some Slavic
languages have quite different rules as well as pronunciations
of the word <Italia> (or <Italie>).
pjk
wugi
> On 20 Nov., 23:20, wugi wrote:> Not long, but an i-vowel followed (not swallowed) by a j-liaison.
>
> I know a Slovenian and I hear only an [i], not an [ij] when she says
> it. Doesn't prove anything, next time I'll ask what her own opinion
> is. Maybe they are really more punctilious.
> (But I seem to remember that she explained me once that this sign "ij"
> in Yugoslavija and Slovenija doesn't represent two vowels in
> pronounciation, but it was a typographical artifice to set an "y" when
> you have none in the char set. Possibly some old urban legend.)
I'd rather expect that cyrillic writing had been the model, where
there was no need for an alternative for ypsilon (that itself being
another sound there).
> > Another test: do you consider "Italia" as a 3 or as a 4 syllable word?
>
> They must be three, because 1) diphthongs belong always to the same
> syllable and 2) end syllables consisting only of vowels are forbidden.
1) that is, if you consider it a diphthong
2) in Italian? In Dutch "Italië" it's really -li-(j)ë. And it'd be in
rhythm with "poppOm poppom", not with "poppOm pom".
Marco Pagliero
> Marco Pagliero wrote:
> > They must be three, because 1) diphthongs belong always to the same
> > syllable and 2) end syllables consisting only of vowels are forbidden.
> I presume you talk about syllabification in English. Some Slavic
> languages have quite different rules as well as pronunciations
> of the word <Italia> (or <Italie>).
rules, as "Italia" is an italian word. It doesn't appear in English
AFAIK. It appears in Slovenian as "Italija" (I'm rather sure, this
time).
Marco P
Marco Pagliero
> I'd rather expect that cyrillic writing had been the model, where
> there was no need for an alternative for ypsilon (that itself being
> another sound there).
Slovenian, Slovenians and Slovenia.
(But this can be another UL, even though everybody knows that inside
the KuK Empire Slovenia has been a pillar against the barbaric
influence of Bulgars, Serbs, Russians and and ...)
> On 21 nov, 01:45, Marco Pagliero wrote:
> > They must be three, because 1) diphthongs belong always to the same
> > syllable and 2) end syllables consisting only of vowels are forbidden.
> 1) that is, if you consider it a diphthong
> 2) in Italian? In Dutch "Italië" it's really -li-(j)ë. And it'd be in
> rhythm with "poppOm poppom", not with "poppOm pom".
1) I consider it to be one. In Italian every group of two vowels is a
diphthong, except in composita: eg. the "oo" in co-o-pe-ra-zio-ne is
not a diphthong, while "io" is one.
2) Yes, in Italian. "Italia" corresponds in general to "poppOm pom".
Except maybe in the national Hymn, where an unfortunate prosody
obliges them to sing "fra-te-he-lli´ di-ta-ha-lia´..."
Marco P
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> The <gli> in "Tartaglia" represents a palatal (not a palatalised) lateral,
> which means a single lateral articulated with the tongue touching the hard
> palate, not two successive or coarticulated sounds. It's also usually
> geminated, as far as I know, but that's another matter.
Would you agree that it is geminated in Spanish too, albeit as a
geminate [j], as I observe here:
In intervocalic positions, what I hear is: <y>: [j] <ll>: [j:]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.lang/msg/466ec778547bbd73
> Regards,
> Ekkehard
wugi
> On 21 Nov., 10:29, wugi wrote:
> I'd rather expect that cyrillic writing had been the model, where
> > there was no need for an alternative for ypsilon (that itself being
> > another sound there).
>
> AFAIK did Cyrillic never play the slightest role in the History of
> Slovenian, Slovenians and Slovenia.
> (But this can be another UL, even though everybody knows that inside
> the KuK Empire Slovenia has been a pillar against the barbaric
> influence of Bulgars, Serbs, Russians and and ...)
Slovenian might easily have looked to neighbour romanising languages
like Croatian, and their "ija" or "iya" transcript from cyrillic.
> > On 21 nov, 01:45, Marco Pagliero wrote:
> > > They must be three, because 1) diphthongs belong always to the same
> > > syllable and 2) end syllables consisting only of vowels are forbidden.
> > 1) that is, if you consider it a diphthong
> > 2) in Italian? In Dutch "Italië" it's really -li-(j)ë. And it'd be in
> > rhythm with "poppOm poppom", not with "poppOm pom".
>
> 1) I consider it to be one. In Italian every group of two vowels is a
> diphthong, except in composita: eg. the "oo" in co-o-pe-ra-zio-ne is
> not a diphthong, while "io" is one.
You'll forgive me for not agreeing in cases such as io, mio, suo, suoi
(always wondered why the simple Latin plural sui hasn't come through
here), due, neo-, etc...
> 2) Yes, in Italian. "Italia" corresponds in general to "poppOm pom".
> Except maybe in the national Hymn, where an unfortunate prosody
> obliges them to sing "fra-te-he-lli´ di-ta-ha-lia´..."
Music can take many liberties for its own rights :-)
wugi
Now you even make verisimilitude a slippery notion ;-)
Merriam-Webster's gave me verisimilar - verisimilitude -
verisimilitudinous. Where might this slippery path lead to I wonder.
Verisimilitudinousnessless?
I now agree with myself that the word I best wanted in the first
place, see above, was meticulous.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
True, but if Germans geminate in a single context, that should make it
possible to explain to Germans that a double consonant in Italian is
that long in every context.
> Ciao
> Marco P
Ekkehard Dengler
> On 20 Nov., 05:10, "ranjit_mathew wrote:
>> On Nov 19, 10:56 pm, Marco Pagliero <mart...@web.de> wrote:
>>> Regrettably a long consonant in German seems not to sound the same
>>> as an Italian double one,
>> Bitte.
>
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemination_(Sprache)
> This whole page is about the fact that the sole and only function of
> written double consonants in German is to show the length of the
> preceding vowel, without phonetical significance in itself.
>
> lang, in Hammeln ist es kurz; das m wird jedoch gleich ausgesprochen."
> That is: A German example: Hameln resp. Hammeln. In Hameln the [a] is
> long, in Hammeln it is short; but _the [m] is pronounced just the
> same_.
>
> Well, first this is wikipedia and second I feel that Germans actually
> do _not_ pronounce this [m] just the same.
I'm afraid you're mistaken.
> And I will even concede
> that in a very acrid "Ich BITTE dich!" they do produce a really double
> [t]. But apart from that I would agree that most spoken doubles in
> German are only suggested.
Long consonants occur fairly consistently across morpheme boundaries
("Kammmuschel"), but are otherwise as good as non-existent. Some partly
lexicalised ("Presssack", see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presskopf) or
highly frequent ("Schifffahrt") compounds tend to have their double
consonants simplified.
Regards,
Ekkehard
Peter T. Daniels
> Long consonants occur fairly consistently across morpheme boundaries
> ("Kammmuschel"), but are otherwise as good as non-existent. Some partly
> lexicalised ("Presssack", seehttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presskopf) or
> highly frequent ("Schifffahrt") compounds tend to have their double
> consonants simplified.
Was the spelling reform supposed to eliminate triple consonants across
morpheme boundaries?
(My favorite word is in the heading of the 2nd mvt. of Mahler's 8th
Symphony: Schlussszene.)
Ruud Harmsen
<gram...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang:
>On Nov 23, 8:37�am, "Ekkehard Dengler" <ED...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> Long consonants occur fairly consistently across morpheme boundaries
>> ("Kammmuschel"), but are otherwise as good as non-existent. Some partly
>> lexicalised ("Presssack", seehttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presskopf) or
>> highly frequent ("Schifffahrt") compounds tend to have their double
>> consonants simplified.
>
>Was the spelling reform supposed to eliminate triple consonants across
>morpheme boundaries?
Yes. It used to be "Schiffahrtgesellschaft" but Schiff-
fahrgesellschaft (some fellow IT workers were trying to get that right
in 1989 in a room close to where I worked).
But now it is consistently "Schifffahrtgesellschaft" and "Schiff-
fahrtgesellschaft"
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.eu
Peter T. Daniels
> Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:43:37 -0800 (PST): "Peter T. Daniels"
>
> >On Nov 23, 8:37 am, "Ekkehard Dengler" <ED...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> >> Long consonants occur fairly consistently across morpheme boundaries
> >> ("Kammmuschel"), but are otherwise as good as non-existent. Some partly
> >> lexicalised ("Presssack", seehttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presskopf) or
> >> highly frequent ("Schifffahrt") compounds tend to have their double
> >> consonants simplified.
>
> >Was the spelling reform supposed to eliminate triple consonants across
> >morpheme boundaries?
>
> Yes. It used to be "Schiffahrtgesellschaft" but Schiff-
> fahrgesellschaft (some fellow IT workers were trying to get that right
> in 1989 in a room close to where I worked).
>
> But now it is consistently "Schifffahrtgesellschaft" and "Schiff-
> fahrtgesellschaft"
Which is to say, No, it used to have two f's but now has three f's.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> (My favorite word is in the heading of the 2nd mvt. of Mahler's 8th
> Symphony: Schlussszene.)
If <sz> is a sibilant followed by a dental affricate, shouldn't the
<s> homoorganically be a dental sibilant? If so, is the preceding <ss>
assimilated to a dental sibilant across a morpheme boundary? Come to
think of it, might the distinction between [s] and [T] be better
described as a sibilant fricative vs. non-sibilant fricative
distinction rather than necessarily an alveolar-dental distinction?
Ekkehard Dengler
> On Nov 23, 8:37 am, "Ekkehard Dengler" <ED...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> Long consonants occur fairly consistently across morpheme boundaries
>> ("Kammmuschel"), but are otherwise as good as non-existent. Some
>> partly lexicalised ("Presssack",
>> seehttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presskopf) or highly frequent
>> ("Schifffahrt") compounds tend to have their double consonants
>> simplified.
>
> Was the spelling reform supposed to eliminate triple consonants across
> morpheme boundaries?
No, on the contrary.
Regards,
Ekkehard
Ekkehard Dengler
>> On Nov 23, 8:37 am, "Ekkehard Dengler" <ED...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> (My favorite word is in the heading of the 2nd mvt. of Mahler's 8th
>> Symphony: Schlussszene.)
>
> If <sz> is a sibilant followed by a dental affricate,
It isn't, <z> represents an alveolar affricate.
Regards,
Ekkehard
António Marques
> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> On Nov 23, 8:37 am, "Ekkehard Dengler" <ED...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> >> (My favorite word is in the heading of the 2nd mvt. of Mahler's 8th
> >> Symphony: Schlussszene.)
>
> > If <sz> is a sibilant followed by a dental affricate,
['Slus,stsen@], I suppose.
> It isn't, <z> represents an alveolar affricate.
What's the difference between a dental and an alveolar affricate?
Specifically, of the many languages with a 'ts' sound, what familiar
ones have it dental and which alveolar? Or even contrast them?
LEE Sau Dan
Peter> On Nov 23, 8:37 am, "Ekkehard Dengler" <ED...@t-online.de> wrote:
>> Long consonants occur fairly consistently across morpheme
>> boundaries ("Kammmuschel"), but are otherwise as good as
>> non-existent. Some partly lexicalised ("Presssack",
>> seehttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presskopf) or highly frequent
>> ("Schifffahrt") compounds tend to have their double consonants
>> simplified.
Peter> Was the spelling reform supposed to eliminate triple
Peter> consonants across morpheme boundaries?
No, if you're talking about the one in 1996.
So: Shifffahrt, Sauerstoffflasche.
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{@nJX6X~}
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
Ekkehard Dengler
> On Nov 23, 10:28 pm, "Ekkehard Dengler" <ED...@t-online.de> wrote:
>> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> On Nov 23, 8:37 am, "Ekkehard Dengler" <ED...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>>>> (My favorite word is in the heading of the 2nd mvt. of Mahler's 8th
>>>> Symphony: Schlussszene.)
>>
>>> If <sz> is a sibilant followed by a dental affricate,
>
> ['Slus,stsen@], I suppose.
['SlUs,stse:n@]/['SlUs,tse:n@].
>> It isn't, <z> represents an alveolar affricate.
>
> What's the difference between a dental and an alveolar affricate?
What do you mean?
> Specifically, of the many languages with a 'ts' sound, what familiar
> ones have it dental and which alveolar? Or even contrast them?
I don't know, but how would that be relevant? There can be no assimilation
if there is no real difference to begin with.
Regards,
Ekkehard
António Marques
If it were relevant to Ranjit's speculation I'd have tried to keep
some of it quoted. What I'm interested in specifically is what I asked
about, dental vs alveolar affricates. Your solid dismissal of <z>
being a dental affricate made me think dental affricates were quite
perceptible to germans as clearly different from their own sound.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
Marathi. [t[sArA] vs [t_sArA]. Many might judge the latter, by ear, to
be [tSArA] but IMHO, the point of articulation is not behind the
alveolar ridge.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
It might be a denti-alveolar / laminal alveolar affricate.
Peter T. Daniels
Remember, Ranjit is a native speaker of the only language in the world
known to have a phonemic opposition between dental and alveolar stops.
John Atkinson
> On Nov 23, 9:13 pm, Ant�nio Marques <ento...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 24, 1:02 am, "Ekkehard Dengler" <ED...@t-online.de> wrote
items of evidence brought forward by those pushing the theory (popular
at the time) that Dravidian and Australian languages are genetically
related was that both had six series of stops -- labial, dental,
aveolar, retroflex, palatal, velar.
J.
PaulJK
My favourite single morpheme word is "jazz" spelled in Hungarian,
"dzsessz".
pjk
Ekkehard Dengler
Ah, I see. No, that's not the case.
Regards,
Ekkehard
Ruud Harmsen
<ED...@t-online.de>: in sci.lang:
>Ant�nio Marques wrote:
>> On Nov 23, 10:28 pm, "Ekkehard Dengler" <ED...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 23, 8:37 am, "Ekkehard Dengler" <ED...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> (My favorite word is in the heading of the 2nd mvt. of Mahler's 8th
>>>>> Symphony: Schlussszene.)
>>>
>>>> If <sz> is a sibilant followed by a dental affricate,
>>
>> ['Slus,stsen@], I suppose.
>
>['SlUs,stse:n@]/['SlUs,tse:n@].
What is the meaning of the comma?
(Stupidest question of the year, but I really don't know.)
Ekkehard Dengler
> Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:02:43 +0100: "Ekkehard Dengler"
> <ED...@t-online.de>: in sci.lang:
>
>> Ant�nio Marques wrote:
>>> On Nov 23, 10:28 pm, "Ekkehard Dengler" <ED...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 23, 8:37 am, "Ekkehard Dengler" <ED...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> (My favorite word is in the heading of the 2nd mvt. of Mahler's
>>>>>> 8th Symphony: Schlussszene.)
>>>>
>>>>> If <sz> is a sibilant followed by a dental affricate,
>>>
>>> ['Slus,stsen@], I suppose.
>>
>> ['SlUs,stse:n@]/['SlUs,tse:n@].
>
> What is the meaning of the comma?
"Secondary stress" (I hope).
Regards,
Ekkehard
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> My favourite single morpheme word is "jazz" spelled in Hungarian,
> "dzsessz".
<sz> is [s]. What is <ssz>?
Ruud Harmsen
<ranjit_...@yahoo.com>: in sci.lang:
/s:/
In Hungarian (and Finnish) all vowels AND consonants can appear long
and short (phonemically). In Hungarian, for consonants this is
indicated in spelling by doubling the letters, where for composite
letters such as ty, gy, sz, ly, zs, etc. only the frist element is
doubled.
Somehow Hungarians seem to think that the English word jazz ends in a
long s, or many a long or short /z/ isn't possible phonotactically.
(Although a word <az> exists, but only before a word starting with a
vowel.)
Wasn't there a native suffix "hoz" is Hungarian?
Peter T. Daniels
> >> On Nov 24, 1:02 am, "Ekkehard Dengler" <ED...@t-online.de> wrote
No, I wasn't around a century or so ago ... but from perusing Dixon's
overviews, I don't remember such a thing. What strikes one is what
Huxley might have called an inordinate fondness for rhotics.
There's also the South Side Chicago (and Irish) English use of a
dental or interdental stop instead of an interdental fricative, but
that's allophonic rather than phonemic.
António Marques
> On Nov 24, 1:02 am, "Ekkehard Dengler"<ED...@t-online.de> wrote:
>> António Marques wrote:
>>> On Nov 23, 10:28 pm, "Ekkehard Dengler"<ED...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 23, 8:37 am, "Ekkehard Dengler"<ED...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> (My favorite word is in the heading of the 2nd mvt. of Mahler's 8th
>>>>>> Symphony: Schlussszene.)
>>
>>>>> If<sz> is a sibilant followed by a dental affricate,
>>
>>> ['Slus,stsen@], I suppose.
>>
>> ['SlUs,stse:n@]/['SlUs,tse:n@].
(Google ate my homework)
Is the e really long? What's the difference between U and a short u?
António Marques
Interesting, thanks.
António Marques
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Nov 24, 1:02 am, "Ekkehard Dengler"<ED...@t-online.de> wrote
Those people really know their teeth.
No, I had no idea.
António Marques
See, I though they used an alveolar stop. One never stops learning.
António Marques
> Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:02:43 +0100: "Ekkehard Dengler"
> <ED...@t-online.de>: in sci.lang:
>
>>> On Nov 23, 10:28 pm, "Ekkehard Dengler"<ED...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 23, 8:37 am, "Ekkehard Dengler"<ED...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> (My favorite word is in the heading of the 2nd mvt. of Mahler's 8th
>>>>>> Symphony: Schlussszene.)
>>>>
>>>>> If<sz> is a sibilant followed by a dental affricate,
>>>
>>> ['Slus,stsen@], I suppose.
>>
>> ['SlUs,stse:n@]/['SlUs,tse:n@].
>
> What is the meaning of the comma?
I at least meant it as secondary stress. Should I have used something else?
Ekkehard Dengler
> On Nov 24, 12:10 am, John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> On Nov 24, 1:02 am, "Ekkehard Dengler" <ED...@t-online.de> wrote
Yes, but some accents have no dental or interdental fricatives at all. For
many Irish people, "thin" differs from "tin" only in that it starts with a
dental rather than an alveolar stop.
Regards,
Ekkehard
Ekkehard Dengler
> Ant�nio Marques wrote, on 24-11-2009 02:13:
>> On Nov 24, 1:02 am, "Ekkehard Dengler"<ED...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 23, 10:28 pm, "Ekkehard Dengler"<ED...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 23, 8:37 am, "Ekkehard Dengler"<ED...@t-online.de>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> (My favorite word is in the heading of the 2nd mvt. of Mahler's
>>>>>>> 8th Symphony: Schlussszene.)
>>>
>>>>>> If<sz> is a sibilant followed by a dental affricate,
>>>
>>>> ['Slus,stsen@], I suppose.
>>>
>>> ['SlUs,stse:n@]/['SlUs,tse:n@].
>
> (Google ate my homework)
>
> Is the e really long?
Yes, it is.
>What's the difference between U and a short u?
The former is lower and less back. I'm not sure if this answers your
question.
Regards,
Ekkehard
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > There's also the South Side Chicago (and Irish) English use of a
> > dental or interdental stop instead of an interdental fricative, but
> > that's allophonic rather than phonemic.
>
> Yes, but some accents have no dental or interdental fricatives at all. For
> many Irish people, "thin" differs from "tin" only in that it starts with a
> dental rather than an alveolar stop.
I have [T] and [t[] in complementary distribution.
[TIk] vs. [kIt[] (in "thick" and "kith")
Peter T. Daniels
No -- in the "Da Bearss" dialect, /T/ is a dental stop, /t/ an
alveolar stop. In the original SNL sketches, George Wendt (a
Chicagoan) probably pronounced it properly, but as they kept it up
over the years, cast members who hadn't been lucky enough to put in
time at Second City might not be aware of the facts.
António Marques
> >> On Nov 24, 1:02 am, "Ekkehard Dengler"<ED...@t-online.de> wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 23, 10:28 pm, "Ekkehard Dengler"<ED...@t-online.de> wrote:
> >>>>> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Nov 23, 8:37 am, "Ekkehard Dengler"<ED...@t-online.de>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> (My favorite word is in the heading of the 2nd mvt. of Mahler's
> >>>>>>> 8th Symphony: Schlussszene.)
>
> >>>>>> If<sz> is a sibilant followed by a dental affricate,
>
> >>>> ['Slus,stsen@], I suppose.
>
> >>> ['SlUs,stse:n@]/['SlUs,tse:n@].
>
> > (Google ate my homework)
>
> > Is the e really long?
>
> Yes, it is.
As long as the one in 'leer'? My impression was that unstressed long
vowels in open syllables were not that long.
> >What's the difference between U and a short u?
>
> The former is lower and less back. I'm not sure if this answers your
> question.
It does.
Brian M. Scott
<john...@bigpond.com> wrote in
<news:AVJOm.57089$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au> in
sci.lang:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
[...]
>> Remember, Ranjit is a native speaker of the only language
>> in the world known to have a phonemic opposition between
>> dental and alveolar stops.
> A slight exaggeration. Remember a century or so ago, when
> one of the items of evidence brought forward by those
> pushing the theory (popular at the time) that Dravidian
> and Australian languages are genetically related was that
> both had six series of stops -- labial, dental, aveolar,
> retroflex, palatal, velar.
Ladefoged & Maddieson say that '[m]any languages contrast
dental and alveolar stops'. Besides Malayalam they mention
Tiwi, Ewi, Dahalo, Toda, and Temne, and they say that such
contrasts are found in 'languages of India, Australia, and
the Americas'.
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:10:56 GMT, John Atkinson
Would it really have been so difficult to give the page reference?
They indicate a _contrast_ only for Toda, Arrernte, and Yanyuwa. The
other "mentions" are about the phonetics of coronal articulation, with
nothing about phonemic contrasts.
Brian M. Scott
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
<news:febb9046-3300-4287...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
> On Nov 24, 9:09�pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
[...]
>> Ladefoged & Maddieson say that '[m]any languages contrast
>> dental and alveolar stops'. �Besides Malayalam they mention
>> Tiwi, Ewi, Dahalo, Toda, and Temne, and they say that such
>> contrasts are found in 'languages of India, Australia, and
>> the Americas'.
> Would it really have been so difficult to give the page reference?
> They indicate a _contrast_ only for Toda, Arrernte, and Yanyuwa. The
> other "mentions" are about the phonetics of coronal articulation, with
> nothing about phonemic contrasts.
You're having an uncommonly hard time with context these
days. It's quite obvious that they *are* talking about
phonemic contrast in the case of the languages that I
mentioned, and the two general statements are explicitly
talking about contrasts.
Brian
Brian
John Atkinson
> On Nov 24, 12:10 am, John Atkinson <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> On Nov 24, 1:02 am, "Ekkehard Dengler" <ED...@t-online.de> wrote
>
> but from perusing Dixon's
> overviews, I don't remember such a thing.
>
I see it's discussed on pp 236-7 (and apparently elsewhere in that book
too).
>>
> What strikes one is what
> Huxley might have called an inordinate fondness for rhotics.
>>
laterals, one for each of the four middle stops, might indeed be
considered excessive by some.
>
> There's also the South Side Chicago (and Irish) English use of a
> dental or interdental stop instead of an interdental fricative, but
> that's allophonic rather than phonemic.
>>
the substrate, mostly in the south) realization don't as a rule have the
fricative -- though I did hear (what seemed to me to be) both used by
Mary Robinson recently.
Don't know anything about the situation in Chicago.
J.
John Atkinson
contrast in both stops and nasals -- in some languages, the dental stop
and nasal are allophonic with the palatal ones, but never with the
aveolar ones.
>>
Page references? Dixon 1980 138ff (map on p 141); Dixon 2002 558-565
(map on p 560).
J.
PaulJK
> Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:25:44 -0800 (PST): "ranjit_...@yahoo.com"
> <ranjit_...@yahoo.com>: in sci.lang:
>
>> On Nov 24, 1:06 am, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>>> My favourite single morpheme word is "jazz" spelled in Hungarian,
>>> "dzsessz".
>>
>> <sz> is [s]. What is <ssz>?
>
> /s:/
>
> In Hungarian (and Finnish) all vowels AND consonants can appear long
> and short (phonemically). In Hungarian, for consonants this is
> indicated in spelling by doubling the letters, where for composite
> letters such as ty, gy, sz, ly, zs, etc. only the frist element is
> doubled.
>
> Somehow Hungarians seem to think that the English word jazz ends in a
> long s, or many a long or short /z/ isn't possible phonotactically.
You seem to give me an impression that you think the Hungarian
spelling is somehow at fault. That is certainly not the case.
Hungarian spelling aims at emulating the original AmE sound of
the word <jazz>. If you actually listened to a Hungarian pronouncing
<dzsessz> you'd find it almost indistinguishable from <jazz> as
pronounced by a native AmEnglish speaker.
Do you actually know what a long Hungarian s and z sound like?
<Dzsezz> would sound quite wrong.
> (Although a word <az> exists, but only before a word starting with a
> vowel.)
>
> Wasn't there a native suffix "hoz" is Hungarian?
You seem to be too preoccupied with spelling.
pjk
Ekkehard Dengler
What substrate are you referring to? Wouldn't the linguistic boundary
between Ulster and the rest of Ireland be better explained as the result of
the presence or absence, respectively, of a superstrate?
Regards,
Ekkehard
Ekkehard Dengler
>>> Ant�nio Marques wrote, on 24-11-2009 02:13:
>>>> On Nov 24, 1:02 am, "Ekkehard Dengler"<ED...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 23, 10:28 pm, "Ekkehard Dengler"<ED...@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>>>> ranjit_math...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 23, 8:37 am, "Ekkehard Dengler"<ED...@t-online.de>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> (My favorite word is in the heading of the 2nd mvt. of
>>>>>>>>> Mahler's 8th Symphony: Schlussszene.)
>>
>>>>>>>> If<sz> is a sibilant followed by a dental affricate,
>>
>>>>>> ['Slus,stsen@], I suppose.
>>
>>>>> ['SlUs,stse:n@]/['SlUs,tse:n@].
>>
>>> (Google ate my homework)
>>
>>> Is the e really long?
>>
>> Yes, it is.
>
> As long as the one in 'leer'?
"Leer" isn't a very useful basis for comparison, since it ends in a
diphthong.
> My impression was that unstressed long
> vowels in open syllables were not that long.
The first "e" in "Schlusszene" sounds like that in the word "Szene" used on
its own, but then it isn't completely unstressed.
>>> What's the difference between U and a short u?
>>
>> The former is lower and less back. I'm not sure if this answers your
>> question.
>
> It does.
Good.
Regards,
Ekkehard
Ekkehard Dengler
> Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:25:44 -0800 (PST): "ranjit_...@yahoo.com"
>> <ranjit_...@yahoo.com>: in sci.lang:
>>
>>> On Nov 24, 1:06 am, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>>>> My favourite single morpheme word is "jazz" spelled in Hungarian,
>>>> "dzsessz".
>>>
>>> <sz> is [s]. What is <ssz>?
>>
>> /s:/
>>
>> In Hungarian (and Finnish) all vowels AND consonants can appear long
>> and short (phonemically). In Hungarian, for consonants this is
>> indicated in spelling by doubling the letters, where for composite
>> letters such as ty, gy, sz, ly, zs, etc. only the frist element is
>> doubled.
>>
>> Somehow Hungarians seem to think that the English word jazz ends in a
>> long s, or many a long or short /z/ isn't possible phonotactically.
>
> You seem to give me an impression that you think the Hungarian
> spelling is somehow at fault. That is certainly not the case.
> Hungarian spelling aims at emulating the original AmE sound of
> the word <jazz>. If you actually listened to a Hungarian pronouncing
> <dzsessz> you'd find it almost indistinguishable from <jazz> as
> pronounced by a native AmEnglish speaker.
>
> Do you actually know what a long Hungarian s and z sound like?
> <Dzsezz> would sound quite wrong.
What's the difference?
Regards,
Ekkehard
Ruud Harmsen
<paul....@paradise.net.nz>: in sci.lang:
>You seem to give me an impression that you think the Hungarian
>spelling is somehow at fault. That is certainly not the case.
>Hungarian spelling aims at emulating the original AmE sound of
>the word <jazz>. If you actually listened to a Hungarian pronouncing
><dzsessz> you'd find it almost indistinguishable from <jazz> as
>pronounced by a native AmEnglish speaker.
Doesn't surprise me, because the Hungarian short /E/ is rather open,
opener than a cardinal [E], so it makes a rather good imitation of an
English [�].
>Do you actually know what a long Hungarian s and z sound like?
I do: like [s:] and [z:]. What else?
><Dzsezz> would sound quite wrong.
Yes, because in English, the <zz> of <jazz> doesn't indicate longness.
(English doesn't have long consonants in the first place.) That's
probably the misunderstanding that led to the double <ssz> at the end.
So if Hungarian <dzsessz> sounds sounds rather good and <dzsezz>
doesn't, I'd expect <dzsez> to sound even better.
>> (Although a word <az> exists, but only before a word starting with a
>> vowel.)
>>
>> Wasn't there a native suffix "hoz" is Hungarian?
>
>You seem to be too preoccupied with spelling.
In Hungarian, spelling and pronunciation are quite closely linked.
Native Hungarian words can have /z/ at the end. The book "Hungarian
Verbs and Essentials of Grammar" gives the example <sz�nh�z> =
[sinha:z] (with a short i! it is mentioned as one the very few cases
where spelling and pronunciation differ).
(Of course the word h�z is also an example of final /z/, it simply
means "house".)
Ruud Harmsen
<ED...@t-online.de>: in sci.lang:
>> Do you actually know what a long Hungarian s and z sound like?
>> <Dzsezz> would sound quite wrong.
>
>What's the difference?
<dzsessz> = /dZEs:/ = [dZ�s:]
<dzsezz> = /dZEz:/ = [dZ�z:]
<dzsez> = /dZEz/ = [dZ�z]
(Or aguably, /E/ could be written /e/, because it is the short
counterpart of long /e:/. But that would be confusing, because the
vowel timbres are really quite different. Likewise, Hungarian could be
said to have /a/ and /a:/, although /a/ never sounds as [a] (whether
central of front), but more like [A] or [O] (unrounded?).
Of course, PTD, will conclude from this that I use all the symbols
wrong and I don't understand the 101 of phonology or phonemics,
whatever the difference is. So be it. )
Ekkehard Dengler
> Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:43:37 +0100: "Ekkehard Dengler"
> <ED...@t-online.de>: in sci.lang:
>
>>> Do you actually know what a long Hungarian s and z sound like?
>>> <Dzsezz> would sound quite wrong.
>>
>> What's the difference?
>
> <dzsessz> = /dZEs:/ = [dZ�s:]
> <dzsezz> = /dZEz:/ = [dZ�z:]
> <dzsez> = /dZEz/ = [dZ�z]
If that's true, then <dzsezz> would seem to come closer to an English
pronunciation of "jazz" than <dzsessz>.
> (Or aguably, /E/ could be written /e/, because it is the short
> counterpart of long /e:/. But that would be confusing, because the
> vowel timbres are really quite different. Likewise, Hungarian could be
> said to have /a/ and /a:/, although /a/ never sounds as [a] (whether
> central of front), but more like [A] or [O] (unrounded?).
I've seen it transcribed as [A.], i.e. an open back rounded vowel.
Regards,
Ekkehard
John Atkinson
> John Atkinson wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>>> There's also the South Side Chicago (and Irish) English use of a
>>> dental or interdental stop instead of an interdental fricative, but
>>> that's allophonic rather than phonemic.
>>
>> Yep. Or, perhaps more accurately, Irish speakers with the stop (due
>> to the substrate, mostly in the south) realization don't as a rule
>> have the fricative -- though I did hear (what seemed to me to be)
>> both used by Mary Robinson recently.
>
> What substrate are you referring to?
>>
(palatalised) in the dental/alveolar region. In Southern Ireland, /t,
t' / were equated with English /T, t /. This pronunciation of English
/T, t / (and likewise /D, d /) seems to be still maintained today mainly
in Cork and thereabouts.
> Wouldn't the linguistic boundary
> between Ulster and the rest of Ireland be better explained as the result of
> the presence or absence, respectively, of a superstrate?
>
Southern Irish English is descended from seventeenth-century southern
English pronounced using the sounds of the Munster dialect of Irish.
Ulster English is derived from Scottish English.
No "superstrates" involved, I think (other than today's Standard English).
John.
Peter T. Daniels
> Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:43:37 +0100: "Ekkehard Dengler"
> <ED...@t-online.de>: in sci.lang:
>
> >> Do you actually know what a long Hungarian s and z sound like?
> >> <Dzsezz> would sound quite wrong.
>
> >What's the difference?
>
> <dzsezz> = /dZEz:/ = [dZæz:]
> <dzsez> = /dZEz/ = [dZæz]
>
> (Or aguably, /E/ could be written /e/, because it is the short
> counterpart of long /e:/. But that would be confusing, because the
> vowel timbres are really quite different. Likewise, Hungarian could be
> said to have /a/ and /a:/, although /a/ never sounds as [a] (whether
> central of front), but more like [A] or [O] (unrounded?).
>
> Of course, PTD, will conclude from this that I use all the symbols
> wrong and I don't understand the 101 of phonology or phonemics,
> whatever the difference is. So be it. )
What I see is that Paul and Ruud appear to be making incompatible
claims about Hungarian phonetics and orthography.
Paul says that <dzsessz> is pronounced like American "jazz," but Ruud
says it's pronounced [dZ&s:]. They can't both be right.
Ekkehard Dengler
> Ekkehard Dengler wrote:
>> John Atkinson wrote:
>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>>>> There's also the South Side Chicago (and Irish) English use of a
>>>> dental or interdental stop instead of an interdental fricative, but
>>>> that's allophonic rather than phonemic.
>>>
>>> Yep. Or, perhaps more accurately, Irish speakers with the stop (due
>>> to the substrate, mostly in the south) realization don't as a rule
>>> have the fricative -- though I did hear (what seemed to me to be)
>>> both used by Mary Robinson recently.
>>
>> What substrate are you referring to?
>>>
> Irish, of course. Which has both /t / (unpalatalised) and /t' /
> (palatalised) in the dental/alveolar region. In Southern Ireland, /t,
> t' / were equated with English /T, t /. This pronunciation of English
> /T, t / (and likewise /D, d /) seems to be still maintained today
> mainly in Cork and thereabouts.
Since Irish used to be spoken in Ulster, too, I don't understand what you
mean by "due to the substrate, mostly in the south". While Ulster Irish has
no a dental fricative, Ulster English doesn't have dental stops in words
like "thin" or "though". And as far as present-day Irish English is
concerned, I don't see any correlation between th-stopping and slender "t"
or "d"; "thin" is to "tin" as "though" is to "dough". But perhaps this isn't
what you meant. Could you please explain?
>> Wouldn't the linguistic boundary
>> between Ulster and the rest of Ireland be better explained as the
>> result of the presence or absence, respectively, of a superstrate?
>>
> Southern Irish English is descended from seventeenth-century southern
> English pronounced using the sounds of the Munster dialect of Irish.
>
> Ulster English is derived from Scottish English.
As well as "English speech mostly from the north and west midlands" (Wells)
and, to a lesser degree, Irish. "Ulster English" is not synonymous with
"Ulster Scots".
> No "superstrates" involved, I think (other than today's Standard
> English).
Ulster was colonised on a far larger scale than any other part of Ireland.
Why wouldn't the varieties of English that came to Ireland as the result of
the Ulster Plantation qualify as a superstrate?
Regards,
Ekkehard
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com>: in sci.lang:
>
> >> On Nov 24, 1:06 am, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> >>> My favourite single morpheme word is "jazz" spelled in Hungarian,
> >>> "dzsessz".
>
> >> <sz> is [s]. What is <ssz>?
>
> > /s:/
>
> > In Hungarian (and Finnish) all vowels AND consonants can appear long
> > and short (phonemically). In Hungarian, for consonants this is
> > indicated in spelling by doubling the letters, where for composite
> > letters such as ty, gy, sz, ly, zs, etc. only the frist element is
> > doubled.
>
> > Somehow Hungarians seem to think that the English word jazz ends in a
> > long s, or many a long or short /z/ isn't possible phonotactically.
>
> You seem to give me an impression that you think the Hungarian
> spelling is somehow at fault. That is certainly not the case.
> Hungarian spelling aims at emulating the original AmE sound of
> the word <jazz>. If you actually listened to a Hungarian pronouncing
> <dzsessz> you'd find it almost indistinguishable from <jazz> as
> pronounced by a native AmEnglish speaker.
A native US English speaker ends it with [z], not [s:].
> Do you actually know what a long Hungarian s and z sound like?
No, but I know what [s:] and [z] sound like when I pronounce them. (I
can't think of a occasion where I had to pronounce [z:].)
> <Dzsezz> would sound quite wrong.
How curious. Why would a voiced final sound quite wrong to a native US
English speaker?