Print

Print


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..

Mike
.


Address changing to [log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Poetry-L2/       My Poetry List
http://groups.google.com/group/adulthumor-l/   My Humor List
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/abrigon-l2       My Friends List
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargruntsooc    Grunts
Past/Present/Future
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/abrigon-world    Magic or Super
High Tech
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/future-history-l  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:
> > http://www.akerbeltz.org/fuaimean/fuaimean.htm
>
> 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
symbols
> for a labiodental sound just seems a little odd.
>
> > In any event, <mh> sometimes nasalizes the surrounded
vowels.
>
> 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
first?
> >
> > 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
occurs
> before any audible sound that could be said to be palatalized,
but the
> tongue is probably in the palatal position even before the
aspiration
> . . .
>
> > > 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
something
> 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
anything
> like the position it's in for velars.  But whatever, that
helps
> muchly.
>
> (BTW, in CXS, the IPA "tilde-through" diacritic is spelled _e,
so
> those sounds are [l_e] and [n_e].  However, [l_e] is more
commonly
> written with its own symbol, [5]).
>
> Thanks again!
>
>
> --
> Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>