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

Quoting John Cowan <cowan@...>:

> 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.
Hm? The Finns I've known do seem to be using [s].

> > 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/.
Surely you mean that |z| is /z/? |c| is /ts/, and |cs| is /tS/.

                                                     Andreas