Print

Print


--- "Mark J. Reed" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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.

I think they were [B] originally in Old Irish (I
should know this! I'm going to be doing graduate work
in it!), try the following page for more historical
info.

http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/old-irish/labhairt.html



> > 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.

Yes indeedy, but I think that there are some special
rules for this since not all words with <mh> are
nasalized....unsure how it happens. 

> > > 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?

OOPS! I meant that the superscript <h> would FOLLOW
the <j>....according to IE convention. Since, in
Indo-European reconstructions, the aspiration is shown
after the labialization

gwh, dhw ...etc 

Logically, following this convention, one should also
find <ghj> and <dhj> although, of course those dont
actually occur in reconstructed IE. 

 
> > > 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.

Read through Akerbeltz also, and see what he says.
He's rather good at phonological descriptions, in my
opinion.


> Thanks again!
> 
> 

You're welcome!
 -Elliott

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com