Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Phonetic question...

From:Paul Edson <conlang@...>
Date:Friday, March 22, 2002, 21:25
Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough response. Of
course, now I'm sitting at my desk making VERY odd sounds
over and over again. "[n] [J] [n_j] [nj]" My coworkers are
beginning to suspect that I'm really as crazy as I say I
am...

--------
Paul Edson (conlang@twocannibals.com)

"Perfection irritates as well as it attracts, in fiction as
in life."
--Louis Auchincloss

> -----Original Message----- > From: Constructed Languages List > [mailto:CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU]On > Behalf Of Christophe Grandsire > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 4:12 PM > To: CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU > Subject: Re: Phonetic question... > > > En réponse à Paul Edson <conlang@...>: > > > > > My understanding is that the "palatalized" diacritic > > ([superscript j] in IPA, ['] or [_j] in > X-SAMPA) indicates a > > modification to the release of the consonant it > modifies. > > How then, does [tj] differ in practice from [t']? > > > > Basically, one is a cluster, the other one a > single consonant. The main > difference lies in length: [tj] would be about > twice as long as [t_j]. Also, in > the second one the sound is actually pronounced > with the tongue raised towards > the palate (palatalisation) while in the first > one it only happens during the > pronounciation of the [j] part. > > > And is there a practical difference between say, IPA > > [left-tail n]/SAMPA [J] and SAMPA [n'] or for > that matter > > [nj]? Take as an example the Spanish word for > "year": [aJo] > > vs. [an'o] vs. [anjo]. > > > > Yep, though the difference is very thin. [J] is a > palatal nasal. That's to say > it's completely articulated in the palate. [n_j] > is simply palatalised, which > means that the middle of the tongue raises > towards the palate, but the basic > articulation is still alveolar (or dental, > depending on your n's :)) ). As for > [nj], it's a cluster, composed of two different > sounds (with a blurred limit > due to the inertia of the vocal apparatus), whose > main difference between the > two other sounds is the length of pronunciation. > > I agree that the difference is extremely thin, > and I actually know of no > language that has phonemic distinction between > palatalised alveolar consonants > and actual palatals (a distinction between [n_j] > and [J] for instance). > > > I've a whole range of consonants with a palatal > release in > > my as-yet unnamed first language, and I'm having trouble > > deciding how to notate them. > > > > If it is really a palatal release (that's to say > the palatal articulation > appears during the production of the sound and > not at the beginning), then the > correct one is the sign of palatalisation [_j]. > Or at least it's my opinion. > > Funny that you mention this today. I'm currently > busy writing a grammar of > Astou, one of my first language, which happens to > oppose non-palatalised from > palatalised consonants (it even has a three-way > distinction between normal, > long and palatalised consonants that superposes > to the voiced-voiceless > distinction in Ancient Astou, but it lost its > long consonants). > > Christophe. > > http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr > > Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody > else play the leading role. >