Re: laterals (was: Pharingials, /l/ vs. /r/ in Southeast Asia)

--- John Cowan <cowan@...> wrote:
> Racsko Tamas scripsit:
>
> >   But who says that English 'sy' in <Sue> 'syoo'
> and 'sh' in <shoe> 'shoo'
> > can't both be an [S] for an Indonesian, or an [s]
> for a Finn [not for an
> > Anglophone, of course]?
>
> AFAIK with /sj/ all dialects have either dropped the
> palatalization (as
> with "Sue" /su/) or have gone all the way to /S/, as
> with "issue" /ISu/).
> Nobody says /sju/ or /Isju/ any more.
>
> In the case of /rj/, palatalization has been lost
> everywhere:  "true" is
> /tr\u/.
>
> The case of /tj/, /dj/, /nj/, and I think /lj/ is
> interesting, as the
> split is not lexical but dialectal: "tune" became
> /tun/ in North America,
> stayed /tjun/, in conservative British speech, and
> moved to /tSun/
> in advanced British dialects and Australian.
> Similarly with d:dj:dZ
> and n:nj:J.
>
Well, my mother (a native Texan) says /tjuzdi/ and
/tjun/ in alternation with /tusdi/ and sometimes
/tun/.  Her mother always had the palatal
pronunciation.  I don't.  So my grandmother
consistantly had /tj/, /dj/ and /nj/ but not /lj/.  My
mother has the same three as my grandmother but in
free variation with the unpalatalized forms.  My
siblings and I only have the unpalatalized forms which
is like my father.

Adam

=====
Indjindrud edjuebu ul Ozias ad ul Jotam. Indjindrud edjuebu ul Jotam ad ul Acaz.
Indjindrud edjuebu ul Acaz ad ul Ezecias. Indjindrud edjuebu ul Ezecias ad ul
Manases. Indjindrud edjuebu ul Manases ad ul Amos. Indjindrud edjuebu ul Amos
ad ul Josias.

Machu 1:9-10