b with a dot over it, was used years ago for BH, which
supposedly had a V sound, which is funny, since Greek, used to
have a B sound, but by the time the Cyrillic users got to it,
the B had become V.. So the need for a new B characters, why you
got the B and b (with a small tale off the top of the b
forwards) one being V and the other B..
Why this all funny, cause Celtic/Greek/Latin shared a common
history to a point until recent times, recent as in 300BC or
just before then. Also Irish/British (Bretons) had contact with
the East, namely the Copts and others for a while, you can see
it in their religious ideals, religious art and more..
Mike
.
Address changing to Abrigon@gci.net or Abrigon@gmail.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Poetry-L2/ My Poetry List
http://groups.google.com/group/adulthumor-l/ My Humor List
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/abrigon-l2 My Friends List
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargruntsooc Grunts
Past/Present/Future
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/abrigon-world Magic or Super
High Tech
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/future-history-l Where we are
going as a species
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: NATLANG: Gaidhlig volunteer needed
> On 3/21/06, Elliott Lash <erelion12@...> wrote:
> >
http://www.akerbeltz.org/fuaimean/fuaimean.htm
>
> 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
> 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 pronounced.
>
> > > 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?
>
> I could see it going either way, logically. The aspiration
occurs
> before any audible sound that could be said to be palatalized,
but the
> tongue is probably in the palatal position even before the
aspiration
> . . .
>
> > > 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.
>
> (BTW, in CXS, the IPA "tilde-through" diacritic is spelled _e,
so
> those sounds are [l_e] and [n_e]. However, [l_e] is more
commonly
> written with its own symbol, [5]).
>
> Thanks again!
>
>
> --
> Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>