Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ    Attic   

Re: Azurian phonology

From:Benct Philip Jonsson <bpj@...>
Date:Sunday, October 19, 2008, 9:53
Alex Fink skrev:
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 19:37:32 +0200, Benct Philip Jonsson <bpj@...> wrote: > >> Both Icelandic and Faroese have an aspiration >> contrast rather than a voicing contrast, as does >> Danish. It is disputable whether there was a >> shift from a true voiced--voiceless contrast >> since even in Swedish and Norwegian >> accents rather have a fortis vs. lenis stop >> opposition [...] >> Of course most accents of English have a >> similar fortis--lenis system. OTOH Scots >> Gaelic has a system entirely analogous to >> that of Icelandic and Faroese. > > Good to know, thanks. So perhaps my "has shifted to" was a rash word choice. > > In any case, this only increases the incongruity of the Azurian spelling to > me. Among all these langs you've named not one does anything different to > <p t c/k> for fortis and <b d g> for lenis...
Agreed. I shouldn't think that the Danish-inspired Spelling used by the folklorist Svabo before the present Icelanicizing orthography was invented by Hammershaimb even used hC for preaspirated stops. It certainly used <p t c/k> and <b d g> for aspirated--unaspirated, since even Danish does that! Maybe Lars II has a con-historical explanation why Azurian is spelled amost in an IPA transcription? And why it has such a Romance-soundunc name? Surely there is a different native name? BTW it seems unrealistic that hey changed the spelling of /tS/ *from* <c> *into* <tj>; surely it should be the other way around: no West European before the 20th century would have dreamed of using c for a palatal- ized sound except before front vowels! And if /tS/ be <c> then surely /S/ be <ç>! ;-) /BP -- sometime Sanskritist

Reply

Lars Finsen <lars.finsen@...>