On 23 April 2017 at 19:55, R A Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On 23/04/2017 19:48, And Rosta wrote: > >> On 19 April 2017 at 18:15, Łukasz Korczewski >> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> Whenever somebody describes a language using words like >>> "mystical", "tough", "barbarous", "cruel" etc. I grow >>> suspicious and full of doubts. Is /y/ "barbarous"? >>> >> >> >> No; I'm pretty sure that guttural fricatives, velar, >> uvular, pharyngeal, would score way the highest on >> barbarousness. >> > > Like French [ʁ]? > Yes, tho the actual rule is something like "A language is barbarous iff both (a) it has guttural fricatives and (b) it is not French". Even that is only a rough approximation: condition (a) is more like "it either (i) has guttural fricatives besides [x] or (ii) has [x] and is neither Romance nor both Celtic and Mystical". Perhaps that could be simplified to "A language is barbarous iff it has guttural fricatives and is neither Romance nor both Celtic and Mystical", but I suspect that those languages with pharyngeal fricatives from the infinite platonic realm of Romance Languages do count as Barbarous (unless French). --And.