Palatal vs. Palatalized (was Re: Orthography of palatalized consonants)
|From:||Steven Williams <feurieaux@...>|
|Date:||Friday, January 14, 2005, 18:19|
--- James W <emindahken@...> schrieb:
> Aha! I think my consonants in question are actually
> 'palatal' and not 'palatalized'. I'm slightly
> confused on the difference, although it makes hazy
Basically, how I learned the difference between a
palatal and a palatalized consonant is this: a
palatalized consonant is sort of a double
articulation. [t_j], for example has the tip of the
tongue at the alveolus, while the dorsum of the tongue
is moving upwards towards the hard palate, while [c]
involves just the dorsum of the tongue moving up to
the hard palate.
The difference between a palatalized consonant and a
simple consonant + [j] cluster is even more subtle.
Russian allows a distinction between syllables like
[a.t_ja] and [at.ja], to make up two examples. I'm not
sure if it could allow a distinction between [tja] and
[t_ja], though it's possible, since the hard sign,
used to cancel palatalization on a consonant, evolved
from proto-Slavic over-short [u], IIRC.
It appears that you can generate palatal consonants
from palatalized velar consonants. It is postulated
that Sanskrit [c] and [J\] came from proto-IE *[kj]
and *[gj]. And from there, the modern Hindi [tS] and
[dZ] are the result of affrication of [c] and [J\];
palatal plosives are _extremely_ prone to affrication
and often do shift forwards to postalveolar
Clear anything up for you?
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 250MB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de