Re: Palatal vs. Palatalized (was Re: Orthography of palatalized consonants)

>>>> Steven Williams<feurieaux@...> 01/14/05 12:19 PM >>>
> --- 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.
OK, this is what I understood, only more technically-described. :)

>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.
Yikes. I can't hear the difference (or produce it). Maybe after
listening to a native speaker in careful speech I could.

>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.
That provides some sound change material for later dialects
if I get that far.

>Clear anything up for you?
Yes, thanks.

James W.