Re: aspirated m?

Oh dear - there are a few confusions here   :)

On Monday, November 22, 2004, at 02:41 , Rene Uittenbogaard wrote:

> I'm confused by the term "aspirated m".
>
> I take it that normally, the term "aspirated" means that a /h/ sound
> follows, so I would expect an "aspirated m" to be pronounced as [m_h].
> However, I get the impression that sometimes the term is used for
> something else, like a voiceless m, or simply a [w] or [v].
This is probably because the participle 'aspirated' is being used in
different ways in different contexts. In some contexts it may mean "h
pronounced with aspiration" which, as you observe, would be [m_h]. The [m]
  here would have some devoicing. As far as I am aware, however, voiceless
[m] occurs only as an allophone /m/.

But in other contexts, especially referring to the 'Celtic' langs, it
often means "the sound resulting from aspirating an earlier /m/" in which
case the sound is either [w] or [v], sometimes pronounced with
accompanying nasalization - see below.

The second usage IMO is misleading, especially as the process was not
strictly aspiration in any case; it was fricativization.

> The orthography |mh| confuses me in the same way: is this [m_h],
> [w]/[v], or a voiceless m?
That depends on the language concerned. There is no one single way that
|mh| is pronounced any more than there is one single way that |ch| is
pronounced. If you imagine that |mh| is always pronounced the same, then
indeed you will be confused. You have to know the spelling conventions of
the language concerned.

[snip]
> Now I'd like to know: is there a single well-defined meaning to the term
> "aspirated m"? Or is this ambiguous?
It is ambiguous - see above. You have to be careful of the context in
which the term is used.

> What is generally meant by the spelling |mh| ?
There is no general meaning. You must know the spelling convention of the
language in question
================================================

On Monday, November 22, 2004, at 04:53 , Sally Caves wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steven Williams" <feurieaux@...>
> To: <CONLANG@...>
> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 10:10 PM
> Subject: Re: aspirated m?
>
>
>> Some languages did have a nasalized labial fricative,
>> [v_n] or something like that, that developed from [m]
>> (or maybe the nasalization of [v], which is an obvious
>> alternate path).
It is thought that some such sound was the earlier stage of the "soft m"
in the Celtic langs (see below) which has become [v] or [w] in the modern
languages. But Breton still often retains nasalization of preceding vowel,
  shown in spelling by [ñv] where |ñ] is sillent and merely indicates
nasalization of the precediong vowel. I believe a similar pronunciation
also sometimes occurs in the Gaelics langs - see below.

[snip]
>> Do you mean the 'aspirated m' of Celtic languages? I
>> believe it just means [v] as mutated from [m], though
>> my knowledge of any of those languages is woefully
>> limited. As far as I know, 'aspirated' is used in
>> Celtic language literature to mean fricativized; i.e.,
>> 'aspirated p' is [f].
>
> There is soft, nasal, and spirant mutation in Welsh.  What you are
> describing with "p" is spirant mutation, where voiceless stops are
> fricatized.
No, I am afraid there's greater confusion in what Steven has written. It
probably arises through the common misconception that all the modern
so-called 'Celtic' languages developed in much the same way. They did not.
  It is very misleading IMNSHO to talk about some sort of common Celtic
aspiration - it belongs to the "twilight of reason".

The mutation /p/ --> /f/ does indeed occur in all these languages - BUT IT
IS NOT THE SAME MUTATION. In the Gaelic languages it occurs as part of the
'soft mutation' or 'lenition' changes; in Welsh and the other Brittonic
languages, the soft mutation of /p/ is /b/. As Sally righthly says, in
Welsh the change /p/ --> /f/ is part of the *spirant* mutation, which does
_not_ occur in the Gaelic languages.

Steven is confusing the the Gaelic and Brittonic mutations.
Fricativization occurs:
- in the Gaelic languages as the soft mutation or lenition;
- in the Brittonic languages as: soft mutuation of _voiced plosives_ and
_m_ only, and (b) as spirant mutation of voiceless plosives only.

The only single mutation that is common to all the Celtic langs is the
soft mutation which is often called 'lenition' in books, web-pages etc
dealing with Gaelic. Because lenition in the Gaelic langs consists of
fricativization, it is often termed 'aspiration' in text books. But
lenition or soft mutation in the Brittonic langs (Welsh, Cornish, Breton)
is certainly *not* aspiration.

(Nasal mutation occurs in all the Brittonic langs & in Irish Gaelic. It
also occurs in some Scots Gaelic dialects but is never shown in the
spelling of Scots Gaelic. The soft mutation & nasal mutations are the only
mutations in the Gaelic languages. Welsh, as Sally says, has the spirant
mutation in addition to these two. Breton & Cornish have the same three as
Welsh, as well as the 'hardening' mutation and a 'mixed' mutation, giving
series of mutations in all!)

> Changing /m/ to /v/ is part of soft of mutation, a combination
> of lenition (changing stops to fricatives) and the voicing of unvoiced
> stops.
The is true of both the Gaelic & the Brittonic languages. But it is *only
in the Gaelic langs* that the mutated |m| is spelled |mh|. In the
Brittonic languages it is written |v| in Breton & Cornish, and |f| [v] in
Welsh.

It will also be noticed that the sound is universally [v] in the Brittonic
langs, but Breton alone also preserves an earlier nasalization of
preceding vowel in certain environments. In the Gaelic langs it is either
[v] _or_ [w]. I understand that [v] is normal if the adjacent vowels are
front vowels and that [w] occurs if the vowels are back vowels, but I
think there is also dialect variation; I believe also some Gaelic dialects
nasal the preceding vowel. But there people on the list better qualified
than me to speak about the Gaelic langs.

>> In Welsh, though, I think /mh/ is actually voiceless [m].
No.

> In Welsh, there is no real aspirated "m"; phrases like fy mhen, "my head,
> "
> are pronounced /vVm'hEn/.  Like "some help."
Absolutely. Sally has lived in Wales & learnt some Welsh, and I lived in
Wales for 22 years and also learnt the language to some extent. I can
testify that Sally is spot on here   :)

Unfortunately I have seen it stated in some books and on some dreadful
web-sites that |mh|, |nh| and |ngh| are voiceless nasals. *THEY ARE NOT*.
My experience has been that books & web-sites that do say this also
contain many other factual errors.

It is worth noting that the Welsh, like the Spaniards, reckon digraphs
that denote single sounds as separate letters in the alphabet. Thus both
in Spanish and in Welsh, |ch| and |ll| are reckoned as separate 'letters'
and placed after |c| and |l| in the alphabet. But although |ng| is
reckoned a 'single letter' in Welsh, |mh|, |nh| and |ngh| are *not* so
reckoned; they are each regarded as _two_ letters. In other words, the
Welsh feel these combinatins to represent _two_ sounds as, indeed, the do.
  Thus not only is _fy mhen_ "my head" pronounced [v@m'hEd], but _fy nhad_
"my father" is pronounced [v@n'ha:d] and _fy nghath_ "my car" is
pronounced [v@N'ha:T].

It should also be noted in the context of this mail that the Welsh |mh| is
not a mutation of /m/ - it is the nasal mutation of /p/. The Welsh for
"head" is _pen_.

> That's why I developed an
> "aspirated m, n, and ng" in Teonaht.  You shape these sounds and while
> holding them breathe out through your nose.  If your nose is stopped up,
> it
> goes right up your eustachian tubes.  Not pleasant. :)
    :)

I'll leave Sally to do deal with Teonaht. But the Welsh |mh| is not this
sound & your eustachian tubes are safe  :)

To sum up:
1. The term 'apirated h' _is_ ambiguous, as Rene suspected. It may mean
[m_h], but it may also mean "a sound that has resulted from earlier
aspiration or fricativization of /m/". One simply has to be aware of the
context.
2. There is no general pronunciation of |mh|. It varies from language to
language.

(Also: the Gaelic & welsh sounds written |mh| are pronounced *very
differently* and come from quite different origins)

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com
===============================================
Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight,
which is not so much a twilight of the gods
as of the reason."      [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ]

Reply