b with a dot over it, was used years ago for BH, which
supposedly had a V sound, which is funny, since Greek, used to
have a B sound, but by the time the Cyrillic users got to it,
the B had become V.. So the need for a new B characters, why you
got the B and b (with a small tale off the top of the b
forwards) one being V and the other B..

Why this all funny, cause Celtic/Greek/Latin shared a common
history to a point until recent times, recent as in 300BC or
just before then. Also Irish/British (Bretons)  had contact with
the East, namely the Copts and others for a while, you can see
it in their religious ideals, religious art and more..


Address changing to [log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask]       My Poetry List   My Humor List       My Friends List    Grunts
Past/Present/Future    Magic or Super
High Tech  Where we are
going as a species
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: NATLANG: Gaidhlig volunteer needed

> On 3/21/06, Elliott Lash <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> Thanks!
> > > Are lenited |bh| and |mh| really [v]?   Not [B]?
> > I really do think they're [v] in Scottish Gaelic.
> Ok.  Were they historically [B], maybe?  The use of bilabial
> for a labiodental sound just seems a little odd.
> > In any event, <mh> sometimes nasalizes the surrounded
> Interesting!  So the underlying nasality carries over even
though the
> sound itself isn't nasal by the time it's pronounced.
> > > Is there a convention concerning which superscript goes
> >
> > I think that the superscript <h> would precede the
> > <j>, but I might be biased due to my Indo-European
> > knowledge.
> Hm?  Why would IE knowledge bias you one way or the other?
> I could see it going either way, logically.  The aspiration
> before any audible sound that could be said to be palatalized,
but the
> tongue is probably in the palatal position even before the
> . . .
> > > What the heck is a "velarized dental"  (e.g. broad single
initial unlenited |l| and |n|)?
> > > How do you do that with your tongue??
> > Aren't they dark-l and dark-n? Like the <l> (in my
> > dialect) in <look>. They're written with a tilde
> > through the L and N.
> Oh!  Is that all they are?  The description I read explicity
said that
> the sounds DIDN'T exist in English, so I assumed there was
> stranger than [5] going on.  Grr.
> I definitely distinguish the two /l/'s in my 'lect, but I
don't quite
> feel how the dark one is "velarized".  My tongue isn't in
> like the position it's in for velars.  But whatever, that
> muchly.
> (BTW, in CXS, the IPA "tilde-through" diacritic is spelled _e,
> those sounds are [l_e] and [n_e].  However, [l_e] is more
> written with its own symbol, [5]).
> Thanks again!
> --
> Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>