Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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 > sense.
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 affricates. Clear anything up for you? ___________________________________________________________ Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 250MB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden:


James W <emindahken@...>
Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>