Re: dZs?

On 27 Dec 2004, at 8.52 am, Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:

> Tristan McLeay wrote:
>
>> I'm fiddling around with the Old Føtisk nominal inflexions or whatever
>> we call them, and just want to know if /dZ/+/s/ -> [tSs] at the end of
>> a word is perfectly cromulent?
>
> I had to google for "cromulent"...
> <http://www.abc.net.au/classic/breakfast/stories/s835155.htm>
> We oughta invent a Germanic-sounding synonym!
It'd have to be a Romance-sounding Germanic-sounding synonym. It seems
to me neologisms like 'cromulent' work because its so much easier to
make long, authentic-sounding Romance words, esp

>> Obviously, we get
>>  Hrøgj- /hr2dZ/ -> Hrøgjes
>> with an expected pronunciation of [hr2tSs]. My English intuition tells
>> me that's naughty, but is my English intuition the one who's being
>> bad?
>
> Since devoicing assimilation is the normal thing in Germanic
> outside that Franco-bastard English I say [hr2tSs] or even
> [hr2tS] is the expected pronunciation.
English does have devoicing assimilation, in words like 'asks' and
'walked'! (just backwards). The naughtiness I'd identified though, and
should've pointed out, was the [Ss] bit (at the end of a word at
least).

>> (The language lacks a /tS/ phoneme.)
>
> You have a /dZ/ but no /tS/?  Any idea how many universals that may
> break!? ;)
No? I'd guess one-or-none :)

> Actually if that is the case I think that [tS] as the
> surface realization of /dZs/ and then becoming a marginal phoneme seems
> a naturalistic course of events.  It also provides |gjs| as a freaky
> spelling for [tS] in foreign words like |Jusjgjsenko|! ;)
Pity I don't have a [S] just yet, or at least not an orthography for it
:) Given that Consonant-j occurs about as frequently as in English
(perhaps less), <sj> doesn't seem a likely choice though. I might make
sk [S] though, giving <Juskgjsenko> which is plain nasty ;) Looks a bit
like someone's whacked a keyboard.

But it seems [tS] is a very popular suggestion, so I believe I may well
use it.

--
Tristan.