Re: Velarization, uvularization, pharyngealization
| From: | Eric Christopherson <rakko@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Monday, January 29, 2007, 23:55 |
|---|
On Jan 28, 2007, at 5:08 PM, MorphemeAddict@WMCONNECT.COM wrote:
> In a message dated 1/28/2007 6:57:37 AM Central Standard Time,
> conlang@MELROCH.SE writes:
>
>
>> BTW, doesn't /q/ rather much function as the emphatic
>> counterpart of /k/ in Semitic languages. (Steg, are
>> you here?)
>>
>
> I think /q/ is just further back in the throat than /k/, not an
> emphatic
> version of it.
"Emphatic", at least in this context, is a somewhat subjective
description of certain sounds within the Semitic linguistic tradition
(and maybe other Afro-Asiatic languages, but I'm not sure). While /q/
in Arabic is not velarized or pharyngealized like the other emphatic
consonants (at least as far as I know), it does pattern with them,
thus it is considered one.
Well, I should say it is *commonly* considered one. Contrarily, I
found something on Google* which distinguishes between emphatic and
uvular at least as far as their effects on vowels, in a Jordanian
dialect at least.
* http://www.zas.gwz - berlin.de/events/phon_interfaces/abstracts/
zawaydeh.pdf
NOTE that you need to remove the spaces before and after the hyphen
in that URL! My ISP for some reason will not let me send this message
with the URL unmunged. It took me quite a bit of experimenting to
find out what it objected to; the only question now is why? I suspect
some sort of email censorship, and am very irked at this. >:(
Reply