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

--- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, "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