Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: NATLANG: Gaidhlig volunteer needed

From:Elliott Lash <erelion12@...>
Date:Tuesday, March 21, 2006, 20:03
--- "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...> wrote:

> On 3/21/06, Elliott Lash <erelion12@...> > wrote: > > > > Thanks! > > > > 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.
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 info.
> > 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 > pronounced.
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 > other?
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 [5] 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 > muchly.
Read through Akerbeltz also, and see what he says. He's rather good at phonological descriptions, in my opinion.
> Thanks again! > >
You're welcome! -Elliott __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around