Re: /S/ in old and middle High German; was: Vikings

Sally Caves scripsit:

> >MHG had two /s/ sounds, one laminal /s_m/
> >corresponding in most cases to modern _ß/ss_ and one apical /s_a/
> >corresponding mostly to modern _s_ /z/.
>
> I'm still unsure what _m  or _a refers to in CXS.  Or any underscore.
The distinction is between the ordinary [s], more explicitly written
[s_m], where the articulation is made with the blade of the tongue,
and [s_a], the Castilian Spanish |s|, which is made with the *tip*
of the tongue.  The acoustic impression is of a faint whistle.

Most s's in most languages are [s_m].  Some exceptions include Basque,
which uses |z| for [s] and |s| for [s_a]; and Finnish and Bengali,
which have no phonemic distinction between [s] and [S], and use [S]
to realize their single phoneme.

> Although I gather that underscores around a letter represent the letter as
> letter.  Like | |.
Underscores around _anything_ are a way of italicizing it.  The meaning
of italics must be glorked from context.

> > --hence the Hungarian values of _s_ and _sz_!
>
> I'm not familiar with the Hungarian values.
|s| is /S/, whereas |sz| is /s/.  Similarly, |z| is /ts/ and |zs| is /Z/.

--
If you have ever wondered if you are in hell,         John Cowan
it has been said, then you are on a well-traveled     http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
road of spiritual inquiry.  If you are absolutely   http://www.reutershealth.com
sure you are in hell, however, then you must be         cowan@ccil.org
on the Cross Bronx Expressway.          --Alan Feuer, NYTimes, 2002-09-20

Replies