Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Labialized consonants (was Re: Some Zitwbata text)

From:Y.Penzev <isaacp@...>
Date:Monday, February 4, 2002, 7:21

----- Original Message -----
From: Vasiliy Chernov <bc_@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: Labialized consonants (was Re: Some Zitwbata text)

> On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 08:50:24 +0200, Y.Penzev <isaacp@...> wrote: > > [...] > >How funny... I've got the same idea. Only dentals and velars can be > >labialized (or palatalized). > >e.g. {bat} [pat] 'vessel' :: {batw} [pat_w] 'land' > > OK for labialized, but... > > Strictly speaking, "palatalized" velars seem phonetically impossible. The > two articulations, palatal and velar, are too close to each other, so
> you get should be accurately termed "front velar" or "back palatal". > > Dentals, too, tend to change their place of articulation when palatalized > (unless something very special prevents them from that). So you'll > probably end up having simply five independent series: bilabial, dental, > alveopalatal, front velar, back velar. > > The quality of "palatalized" seems to be a pretty morphonological thing - > *except* with palatalized labials (which, BTW, are anthropophonically the > easiest category of palatalized sounds - before vowels, at any rate).
Uhm, with your tendency to "precising"... Yes, I know, the old /tj/ and /kj/ phonemes merged (still written with 2 different characters) in smth like [tS)_j] (through stage [c]). The same with the other sounds from these rows.
> Basilius
Yitzik ~~~~~~~~~~~~~