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

Hmm! I wondered about exactly this, because I wanted to incorporate
palatalization of initial consonants in my (nameless little proto-) conlang as
an indicator of verbal mood, but wondered what would happen to the consonants
that were already palatal . . .
Krista

>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: http://mail.yahoo.de

Reply