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

Shalom!

----- 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
what
> 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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~