Re: Palatalization

Whoops, I sent that to you privately, James, and that was supposed to go to
the list.

From: "James Worlton" <jworlton@...>

> t_j and c
> d_j and J\
>
> emindahken has some palatalized consonants and I am trying to find the
> most efficient way to represent them phonetically. Personally, the two
> examples seem to me like they should be identical. If anyone can explain
> the differences (however subtle) I would appreciate it.
I have a set of palatal-type sibilants in Tech, but I'm not sure whether
they should be palatized alveolars or alveolopalatals. What's the
difference, really? For Common Slavic c-acute, I see /ts_j/ in one language,
/ts\/ in another, and /c/ in still another. I know a true palatal is
different than a palatized alveolar....

Anyway, the 'hissing' consonant phonemes in question, when latinized:

z-acute: /dz_j/ or /dz\/
c-acute: /ts_j/ or /ts\/
c-acute-apostrophe: /ts_>_j/ or /ts\_>/
s-acute: /s_j/ or /s\/

(I also have postalveolar and retroflex distinction for 'hushing'
consonants, but that's another issue.)

It is also possible in my conlang to have a palatized alveolar nasal /n_j/
and a palatal nasal /J/, as well as a palatized alveolar lateral /l_j/ and a
palatal lateral /L/. In non-careful speech this distinction might be lost,
however.