> -----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.
>