Re: The Story of Guper the Foolish Troll

At 8:28 pm -0600 27/2/99, dunn patrick w wrote:
.........
>
>To whoever criticized the phonology.
<nit>
I said I was puzzled & looking for enlightenment - I gave the reasons why I
was puzzled so you'd know on what points to enlighten me.  That's not what
I understand by criticism.
<end of nit>

......
>
>But ya know what?  Voiced glotal stops may be impossible, but if so, I
>deserve some money, cause I'm making one right now all *over* the damn
>place!  Guess bumblebees can't fly, either.
Bumblebees certainly can fly.  I don't know why you'd think they can't.
Nor do I see their relevance to this argument.

But I clearly spelled out my reasons why I'd always understood that voiced
glottal plosives are not possible.  If they are possible, all I'm asking is
some enlightenment on what I've misunderstood - nothing more, nothing less.

>Glotal approximants?  Nope, I can't really make 'em either.  I can
>*imagine* them, and come pretty close (sort of a really raspy h, mixed
>with a half a gargle).
But with respect, both raspy h and half gargles surely need _friction_.  My
understanding is that approximants are _frictionless_ continuants.  It's
that the things are frictionless that puzzles me.

>But then, I'm not a troll.  It's purposfully
>alien, since Trolls are alien from humans.  And if you can't figure out a
>glotal nasal, well, "I will weep for thee.  Methinks this fall of thine
>is like another fall of man."
A glottal nasal?  But your original mail said nothing about a glottal nasal
so I fail to see the relevance of your quote.  You said, and I quote, "ng
nasal approximate".  I said that "nasal approximate" had no meaning for me;
that is true - it hasn't.  "Glottal nasal" does have a meaning.

BUT:
At 1:34 am -0600 28/2/99, dunn patrick w wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Feb 1999, Josh Roth wrote:
......
>> I'm assuming that the g was meant to show that the sound is velar, which
>>would
>> make this a velar nasal apporximant.  That's easy to make.  I'm making one
>> right now.  It's just a y (/j/) sound, but further back, and nasalized.
.........
>
>Josh is right.
>
>--Patrick
Oh dear - now I'm even more puzzled.  First you weep for me (do I detect
sarcasm here?) because I can't imagine a _glottal_ nasal (tho in fact I
can), now you say that Josh is right: it's really a _velar_ nasal
approximant.

I've pronounced velar nasals correctly for nearly 60 years - no problem.  I
know perfectly well what velar approximants are.  I think I could also
manage a velar nasal approximant.

-------------------------------------------------------------
[...]
>ugly sounds on a chart -- for one thing, I don't think glottal sounds are
>ugly, but apparently I'm in the minority on that one
Nor do I - nor did I ever suggest that I did.  I don't find anything ugly
with our English /h/ and certainly the voiced 'h' is IMO pleasant enough. I
don't like the common Brit use of the glottal stop instead of medial and
final /t/, but the sound itself is not particularly unpleasant.

Ray.