Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Phonetic question...

From:Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>
Date:Friday, March 22, 2002, 21:12
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.

Replies

Paul Edson <conlang@...>
Danny Wier <dawier@...>