THEORY: [Re: THEORY: Historical linguistics, and soundlaws]
|From:||Edward Heil <edwardheil@...>|
|Date:||Friday, March 26, 1999, 21:02|
"Raymond A. Brown" <raybrown@...> wrote:
> At 2:12 am -0500 26/3/99, Nik Taylor wrote:
> >"Raymond A. Brown" wrote:
> >> All the evidence is that it was trilled much like the modern Italian=,
> >> & Welsh /r/.
> >What evidence would that be? Is it merely that the trill is the most
> >probable ancestor of the various Romance r's?
> Well that is strongish evidence: Romanian, Italian & the various Iberia=n
> Romances have the trilled apical /r/ and so does quite of southern Fran=ce.
> But there is other evidence also which, unfortunately, I don't have to
> hand, from the ancient writers themselves when describing the sound.
> Although neither the Greeks or the Romans ever approached the
> sophistication of Sanskrit grammarians, they did give some useful insig=hts
> into their language.
As I remember, the description of the sound is "like a dog growling." So=
trilled to me! The evidence which rules out uvular trills I don't rememb=
off the top of my head.
Speaking of French Rs, as I remember, Haitian French/Creole seemed to me =
change the uvular R to a labial approximant (w), so that it took me forev=
realize that the fellow whose name was pronounced "On-Wee" was "Henri."
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=3D=