Re: NATLANG: Gaidhlig volunteer needed
|From:||Elliott Lash <erelion12@...>|
|Date:||Tuesday, March 21, 2006, 20:03|
--- "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...> wrote:
I think they were [B] originally in Old Irish (I
should know this! I'm going to be doing graduate work
in it!), try the following page for more historical
> On 3/21/06, Elliott Lash <erelion12@...>
> > http://www.akerbeltz.org/fuaimean/fuaimean.htm
> > > Are lenited |bh| and |mh| really [v]? Not [B]?
> > I really do think they're [v] in Scottish Gaelic.
> Ok. Were they historically [B], maybe? The use of
> bilabial symbols
> for a labiodental sound just seems a little odd.
> > In any event, <mh> sometimes nasalizes the
> surrounded vowels.
> Interesting! So the underlying nasality carries
> over even though the
> sound itself isn't nasal by the time it's
Yes indeedy, but I think that there are some special
rules for this since not all words with <mh> are
nasalized....unsure how it happens.
> > > Is there a convention concerning which
> superscript goes first?
> > I think that the superscript <h> would precede the
> > <j>, but I might be biased due to my Indo-European
> > knowledge.
> Hm? Why would IE knowledge bias you one way or the
OOPS! I meant that the superscript <h> would FOLLOW
the <j>....according to IE convention. Since, in
Indo-European reconstructions, the aspiration is shown
after the labialization
gwh, dhw ...etc
Logically, following this convention, one should also
find <ghj> and <dhj> although, of course those dont
actually occur in reconstructed IE.
> > > What the heck is a "velarized dental" (e.g.
> broad single initial unlenited |l| and |n|)?
> > > How do you do that with your tongue??
> > Aren't they dark-l and dark-n? Like the <l> (in my
> > dialect) in <look>. They're written with a tilde
> > through the L and N.
> Oh! Is that all they are? The description I read
> explicity said that
> the sounds DIDN'T exist in English, so I assumed
> there was something
> stranger than  going on. Grr.
> I definitely distinguish the two /l/'s in my 'lect,
> but I don't quite
> feel how the dark one is "velarized". My tongue
> isn't in anything
> like the position it's in for velars. But whatever,
> that helps
Read through Akerbeltz also, and see what he says.
He's rather good at phonological descriptions, in my
> Thanks again!
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around