Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: OT: YAGPT: velar vs. uvular (was: my phonology)

From:Christian Thalmann <cinga@...>
Date:Saturday, January 8, 2005, 0:14
--- In, "J. 'Mach' Wust" <j_mach_wust@Y...> wrote:

> >Ah, you've switched to [k]? That feels less precise than > >your former [g_0], seeing as I have [k] in, say "Ggoggi" > >[koki] (Coke), distinct from [g_0] in "Grüess" [g_0ry@s:]. > >I'd just go for phonemic notation: /gry@s:/ > > [k] is my preferred analysis, since I don't believe in fortis/lenis, but > rather that it's a length distinction. I'd analyze _Ggoggi_ as /k:Ok:i/.
I won't object to a geminate consonant in the middle, but at the beginning? My "Ggoggi" begins with the same sound as French "coquille", and surely you would't analyze that as an initial geminate [k:Oki:j]? Phonemically, I can see that the sound in question only appears in medial, geminate positions in Germanic words, which would justify the notation as /k:/, whereas "Ggöp" or "Ggaar" are borrowings from other languages where the phoneme placement need not make sense... But still, given the freedom one has in choosing the notation of a phoneme, I'd clearly favor /g k kX/ or even /g gg kX/ over /k k: kX/, if only because 1) we use the correspondent graphemes to write Schwiizertüütsch, thus they feel intuitive; and 2) most people aren't even aware that their supposedly voiced consonants aren't. In fact, I only realized it when you pointed it out a while ago. ,ny:pfy'rugu@t -- Christian Thalmann