------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/GSaulB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Ashamed of [T]? (fy: /T/ -> /t_d/?)
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: Fwd: Lateral Plosive
From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3. Re: Advanced English + Babel text
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4. Rejected posting to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: "L-Soft list server at Brown University (1.8d)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5. OT: NMRK
From: Jeffrey Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6. Re: USAGE: rhotics (was: Advanced English + Babel text)
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7. Re: OT: NMRK
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8. Re: Advanced English + Babel text
From: Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9. Re: OT: NMRK
From: Muke Tever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10. Re: OT: NMRK
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11. Re: OT: NMRK
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12. [META] Re: OT: NMRK
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13. Re: [META] Re: OT: NMRK
From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14. Re: USAGE: rhotics (was: Advanced English + Babel text)
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15. Re: samhain?
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16. Re: [META] Re: OT: NMRK
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17. Re: Ashamed of [T]? (fy: /T/ -> /t_d/?)
From: "Pascal A. Kramm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18. Re: Ashamed of [T]? (fy: /T/ -> /t_d/?)
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19. Re: samhain?
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20. sentances in C-14
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21. Re: /T/ -> /t_d/?
From: Stephen Mulraney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22. Re: USAGE: rhotics (was: Advanced English + Babel text)
From: Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
23. Re: Ashamed of [T]? (fy: /T/ -> /t_d/?)
From: "B. Garcia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24. Re: USAGE: rhotics (was: Advanced English + Babel text)
From: Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
25. Re: Ashamed of [T]? (fy: /T/ -> /t_d/?)
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 07:01:03 +0000
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ashamed of [T]? (fy: /T/ -> /t_d/?)
On Tuesday, November 2, 2004, at 08:44 , Jan van Steenbergen wrote:
> --- Ray Brown skrzypszy:
>> It seems to me a slightly odd mentality to claim that pronouncing
>> English or modern Greek _properly_ is something to be ashamed of.
>
> I didn't say that. First of all, I was merely trying to explain why
> s�me people feel a bit awkward about producing the sound. And in case
> I need to be more explicit: I absolutely do n�t belong to that
> category at all.
Phew!! I am both glad that you have made it quite clear that I
misunderstood you and also that I did misunderstand you. I apologize
unreservedly for any hurt it gave you & am only too happy to be in the
wrong on this one.
I can understand feeling awkward about pronouncing unfamiliar sounds. But
that does not address the original claim (Can't recall who made it now) of
being _ashamed_ to pronounce [T]. Like Marcos, I find it a ludicrous
statement; and if the reason is "because people may think I have a defect"
I personally find that contemptible.
[snip]
===============================================
> On Tuesday, November 2, 2004, at 10:28 , J. 'Mach' Wust wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 08:44:23 +0000, Jan van Steenbergen
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>> Again, I didn't say that. What I said, is that [T], when used in a
>> language that does not have it, is *perceived* as a speech defect by
>> some people, myself not included, and that this perception may even
>> be generalised to *all* languages by some fools, again myself not
>> included).
>
> Don't include me either!
I didn't - indeed, in another mail I made it clear I did not.
[snip]
> It's similar with the uvular [X]. People who don't speak a language with
> this sound often don't like it. There are common jokes that this sound is
> a
> throat disease and must hurt if pronounced correctly.
I haven't heard the latter - but I do know many people find the sound
unpleasant. Some people likewise find Welsh /K/ unpleasant. But finding
sounds pleasant or unpleasant is a very subjective thing, the same with
finding languages pleasant or unpleasant. It is well known, for example,
that JRRT found Welsh attractive but found Gaelic harsh & unattractive.
But that is a very different matter from being ashamed or disgusted.
>>> I agree entirely with Joe. "Disgusted" does have very strong
>>> connotations - and to someone of my generation, I regret to say,
>>> Pascal's sentiments seem rather disturbing.
>>
>> Unless it was merely a matter of a non-native speaker using a word
>> the wrong way, I agree.
>
> Which wouldn't surprise me, since I think this word is a typical faux ami.
> The connotation it gives to me is of |dis|: 'negation', |gust|: 'like' (as
> in Spanish 'gusta'); that is |disgust|: 'not-like'.
No - it's from the Old French verb _desgouster_ "to cause distaste". The
second part, _gouster_ (mod. Fr., go�ter) is "to taste" from Latin
_gustare_. "Disgusting" originally meant 'distaste, disfavor, displeasure'
and is used that way in Milton, Johnson & Jane Austen. But at some time -
was it in the Victorian era? - before the 20th century it had come to mean
"extreme distaste, loathing", that is it implies moral and/or physical
repugnance. It is, as Joe says, a strong word.
> ............... corresponding rather to
> German _Ekel, Abscheu_
Yes, exactly!
I hope very much it is a case of a non-native speaker mis-using the word.
Indeed, as Pascal has since written "I feel slightly annoyed by the th", I'
ll assume this was so.
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================
Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight,
which is not so much a twilight of the gods
as of the reason." [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 08:14:44 +0100
From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Lateral Plosive
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 15:04:14 -0500, Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 09:27:28AM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> > Judging by Okrand's remarks (and the spelling itself), Klingon "tlh"
> > is an *aspirated* dental affricate with lateral plosion, [tK)_h].
>
> Well, OK, but all plosives are aspirated in Klingon,
ITYM "unvoiced plosives"? The voiced stops ([d`] or [b]) are not, to
my knowledge, aspirated.
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Watch the Reply-To!
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 06:19:38 -0500
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advanced English + Babel text
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 23:04:51 -0500, Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> >On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 14:35:17 -0500, Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>>
>> The French uvular "scrape"? Would this be a fricative [R], as opposed to
>> a German trill [R\]? I don't know much about the variation of French
>> voiced /r/.
>
>Yes, exactly. As for its variations, I think someone already came on line
>with that one.
Hm, yes, that was me, too. :) And I stated the opposite of you: rather a
fricative in German (among other realizations), and rather a trill in French
(but I'm not sure about it).
>My relatives on my father's side are
>Swabian, and they live mostly in communities near Stuttgart. I have never
>visited them, alas, even when I was in Switzerland. No time or money. So
>what would my pronunciation of /r/ be for that region?
I don't know. I just know it's [r] in western Switzerland and [R\] in
eastern Switzerland, both regions being "rhotic", that is, without
vowelization (is this the word?).
>I might pay a
>visit, since I'm also interested in the Zwiefalten MS that is housed in the
>library there.
Medieval manuscripts? Have you seen the digitalizations of the Biblotheca
Palatina of Heidelberg:
http://www.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/helios/fachinfo/www/kunst/digi/welcome.html
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
j. 'mach' wust
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 08:20:15 -0500
From: "L-Soft list server at Brown University (1.8d)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Rejected posting to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You are not authorized to send mail to the CONLANG list from your
[EMAIL PROTECTED] account. You might be authorized to send to the list
from another of your accounts, or perhaps when using another mail program which
generates slightly different addresses, but LISTSERV has no way to associate
this other account or address with yours. If you need assistance or if you have
any question regarding the policy of the CONLANG list, please contact the list
owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------ Rejected message (35 lines) --------------------------
Received: from BROWNVM.brown.edu (brownvm.brown.edu [128.148.18.19])
by listserv.brown.edu (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id iA3DKEX08868
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 08:20:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: by BROWNVM.brown.edu (IBM VM SMTP Level 320) via spool with SMTP id 7712 ;
Wed, 03 Nov 2004 08:19:06 EST
Received: from BROWNVM (NJE origin [EMAIL PROTECTED]) by BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU (LMail
V1.2d/1.8d) with BSMTP id 4673 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 08:19:07 -0500
Received: from draco.services.brown.edu [128.148.106.172] by BROWNVM.brown.edu (IBM VM
SMTP Level 320) via TCP with SMTP ; Wed, 03 Nov 2004 08:19:06 EST
Received: from brownvm.brown.edu ([69.2.230.202])
by draco.services.brown.edu (Switch-3.1.6/Switch-3.1.6/) with SMTP id
iA3DKBhr004929
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 08:20:11 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Kylie D. Yankovic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: If you think these won't make her happy, your dumb!
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 05:10:51 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: ESMTP
X-Brown-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-Brown-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-Brown-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=2.457,
required 5, HTML_50_60 0.18, HTML_FONTCOLOR_RED 0.10,
HTML_FONTCOLOR_UNSAFE 0.10, HTML_FONT_INVISIBLE 0.45,
HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_04 1.53, HTML_MESSAGE 0.00, MIME_HTML_ONLY 0.10)
X-Brown-MailScanner-SpamScore: ss
<HTML><title>624052SXdL 03fs2t0WzH 4G804j9IIW</title><body>
<p align="center"><font size="1" color=#ffffff>Hz1 1747 c8A aLyBpt 4E7v 49Rsp 3Ae5
5Se1.</font></p>
<p align="right"><a name="3Y2Q"
href="http://www.galdiobover.com/9/4/index.php?ai=7790&com=35&";><img name="8j9v"
src="http://WWW.BOLIOPPLE.COM/0/4/4-2.jpg"; border="0"></a></p>
<p align="center"><font size="1" color=#ffffff>qfa SITT 9q3 d5dT43 4z4b 53v11 9y71
0b24.</font></p>
<p align="right"><img name="052S" src="http://XdL.03fs2t0WzH4G80.com/4j9.jpg";
height="225" width="1" border="0"></p>
<p align="center"><font size="1" color=#ffffff>IIW Hz11 747 c8AaLy Bpt4 E7v49 Rsp3
Ae55.</font></p>
<p align="right"><font size="2" color="#D66086">All this was perplexing and upsetting.
06C7 FZiv qfa SITT9 q3d 5dT 434z4 b53v1. Oh ya, well why is he jumping around all
happy? Im dumb, i just shot my self in the foot 9y7 10b2 4052 SXdL03 fs2 t0Wz H4G804.
</font> <a name="j9II" href="http://WWW.BOLIOPPLE.COM/remv/";>WHz117</a></p>
<p align="center"><font size="1" color=#ffffff>47c 8AaL yBp t4E7v4 9Rsp 3Ae55 Se13
Y2Q6.</font></p>
</body></html>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 11:20:11 -0500
From: Jeffrey Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: OT: NMRK
I know I've defended the No Cross No Crown rule in the past, sometimes
quite vehemently, but I find myself in the position of having to break it.
Forgive me. I feel this is a matter of life and death.
I am going to spend as much of the day (and night) as I can chanting
NamMyohoRengeKyo, even if I have to tie myself to the chair. I invite
anyone who wishes to support Mr. Kerry and the American Democratic party to
chant also, regardless of what country they live in or what practice they
usually use. This is not a sectarian matter.
Something like [nam.mj7:h7:4eN.ge:kj7:] can be used; [o]'s instead of
[7]'s. The "ge" is normally short, but is lengthened for purposes of
repeated chanting. Likewise, the "nam" has been shortened from "namu".
No discussion, please. I hope this is enough information. I expect to be
offline, possibly permanently. If so, happy conlanging! And if not, happy
conlanging anyways! :)
Jeffrey Scott Jones
NMRK
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:06:29 +0100
From: Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: USAGE: rhotics (was: Advanced English + Babel text)
Quoting "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 13:54:06 -0500, Pascal A. Kramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 20:24:13 -0500, Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >>In pronouncing German, I try my
> >>best to produce the back-trilled "r." I can't do it, it comes out
> >>sounding like a French "r," but I respect it and the uvular acrobatics of
> >>its natives.
> >
> >German "r" is definitely NOT trilled. It's the voiced uvular fricative.
>
> The only definite assertion about the pronunciation of German /r/ is that
> there's a lot of variation (and I'm talking about standard German, not about
> the dialects). Some varieties have [r] (which is also recommended in the
> prescriptive tradition) but most have nowadays either [R\] or [R].
This happens to be one of the points where Duden and Siebs disagree. I suppose
there can be no stronger statement that there is no single standard
pronunciation of German /r/.
> Independent from that, there's a variation analogous to the one between the
> rhotic and non-rhotic dialects in English: Most varieties of standard German
> vowelize the /r/ after long vowels or schwa, and many vowelize it after
> short vowels as well.
It's 'vocalize'.
> >I'm not that good at French, but afaik, it's prectically the same there.
>
> I thought that a real trill [R\] is most common. In Parisian speech (and
> other), /r/ is devoiced in weak syllables after voiceless consonants, so
> that e.g. |mettre| turns out as [mEtX]. There are no r-dropping dialects at
> all, if I'm not wrong.
Christophe used to tell us that the uvular trill is as good as dead in the
French of France today, the uvular fricative being close to universal.
Andreas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 16:57:21 +0000
From: Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: NMRK
Sorry.... but what does "NamMyohoRengeKyo" mean? Is it a representation
of American English somehow, or a word game, or Chinese or ....? I'm
very confused... I'd be grateful if anyone could email me an explanation
on or off list.
>I know I've defended the No Cross No Crown rule in the past, sometimes
>quite vehemently, but I find myself in the position of having to break it.
>Forgive me. I feel this is a matter of life and death.
>
>I am going to spend as much of the day (and night) as I can chanting
>NamMyohoRengeKyo, even if I have to tie myself to the chair. I invite
>anyone who wishes to support Mr. Kerry and the American Democratic party to
>chant also, regardless of what country they live in or what practice they
>usually use. This is not a sectarian matter.
>
>Something like [nam.mj7:h7:4eN.ge:kj7:] can be used; [o]'s instead of
>[7]'s. The "ge" is normally short, but is lengthened for purposes of
>repeated chanting. Likewise, the "nam" has been shortened from "namu".
>
>No discussion, please. I hope this is enough information. I expect to be
>offline, possibly permanently. If so, happy conlanging! And if not, happy
>conlanging anyways! :)
>
>Jeffrey Scott Jones
>
>NMRK
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 12:11:30 -0500
From: Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advanced English + Babel text
----- Original Message -----
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 23:04:51 -0500, Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>> >On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 14:35:17 -0500, Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> >wrote:
>>>
>>> The French uvular "scrape"? Would this be a fricative [R], as opposed to
>>> a German trill [R\]? I don't know much about the variation of French
>>> voiced /r/.
>>
>>Yes, exactly. As for its variations, I think someone already came on line
>>with that one.
>
> Hm, yes, that was me, too. :) And I stated the opposite of you: rather a
> fricative in German (among other realizations), and rather a trill in
> French
> (but I'm not sure about it).
I've never heard a uvular trill [R\] among francophones; rather, the
fricative [R] or the unvoiced fricative /x/, especially after "t": "trois,"
etc. The uvular trills I'm familiar with occur in Hebrew (in fact I was
just practicing it with a group of Israelis the other night), and among
certain German speakers. Many Germans, I gather, don't trill, but merely
fricatize the "r"; but I have a teasing friend who tells me that I sound
French when I pronounce German. That may well be; my training has been
mostly in French and Spanish.
The history of |r| and its developments in not only France but Germany and
England is an interesting and I think quite complex one. Maybe somebody
else, here, can unpack it. As I understand it, and I may be wrong, /R/ in
French was a fairly recent development--seventeenth/eighteenth century--and
until then the common way to pronounce it was as a flap, as in Spanish, or a
front trill. I know from studying Old French that it was presumed to be
flapped or trilled. But the change, I have read, came about with changes in
England and Germany, especially the dropping of final /r/ in England. Is
this true?
BTW, how do you express in Sampa IPA all these different pronunciations of
|r|? In Teonaht, |r| is a retroflex tap. You curl the tongue back in the
mouth and bring it forward across the back part of the alveolar ridge. Does
anybody know of a natural language that does this? Other r's are trilled
with the tongue, especially initial r.
>>My relatives on my father's side are
>>Swabian, and they live mostly in communities near Stuttgart. I have never
>>visited them, alas, even when I was in Switzerland. No time or money. So
>>what would my pronunciation of /r/ be for that region?
>
> I don't know. I just know it's [r] in western Switzerland and [R\] in
> eastern Switzerland, both regions being "rhotic", that is, without
> vowelization (is this the word?).
Never got into Schweizerdeutsch... I don't even know how to spell the way
they pronounce it there! :( Swizerdutsch? And then all the variations!!
I worked in Geneva, visited Zermatt and Bern, where we threw carrots to the
bears.
>>I might pay a
>>visit, since I'm also interested in the Zwiefalten MS that is housed in
>>the
>>library there.
>
> Medieval manuscripts? Have you seen the digitalizations of the Biblotheca
> Palatina of Heidelberg:
>
> http://www.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/helios/fachinfo/www/kunst/digi/welcome.html
Impressive site! Will explore presently. (Interrupted by a long phone call,
and now I must go). I'm after the Z manuscript for research purposes, and
hope they can send our library a microfilm of it.
Thanks,
Sally
http://www.frontiernet.net/~scaves/contents.html
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 10:39:31 -0700
From: Muke Tever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: NMRK
Chris Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Sorry.... but what does "NamMyohoRengeKyo" mean? Is it a representation
> of American English somehow, or a word game, or Chinese or ....? I'm
> very confused... I'd be grateful if anyone could email me an explanation
> on or off list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nam_Myoho_Renge_Kyo
Not very explanatory, but a basic description.
*Muke!
--
website: http://frath.net/
LiveJournal: http://kohath.livejournal.com/
deviantArt: http://kohath.deviantart.com/
FrathWiki, a conlang and conculture wiki:
http://wiki.frath.net/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 13:14:41 -0500
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: NMRK
Chris Bates scripsit:
> Sorry.... but what does "NamMyohoRengeKyo" mean? Is it a representation
> of American English somehow, or a word game, or Chinese or ....? I'm
> very confused... I'd be grateful if anyone could email me an explanation
> on or off list.
I don't mind this being discussed on-list, since we are talking about a
religious application of language rather than language itself.
The phrase is the Sino-Japanese adaptation of a Chinese phrase, most of
which is itself a translation of the title of the Lotus Sutra, one of the
most important sacred writings of Mahayana Buddhism. The "Nam" part means
"hail to" or "honor to", roughly. The other six characters say
(sans syntax) "Dharma Lotus Sutra". All of these terms are extremely
polyvalent, so one can translate it flatfootedly as "Honor the Lotus Sutra"
or more interpretatively as "Devotion to the teaching (sutra) of the mystic
law of the universe (dharma)".
In any case, it is the chief, often the only, mantra (meditative incantation)
of the Nichiren schools of Buddhism. For more details, consult
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichiren_Buddhism and chase links.
> >I know I've defended the No Cross No Crown rule in the past,
Strictly speaking, we have no such rule. Religion and politics, like
text editors and auxlangs, may not be *advocated* for here, but they may
certainly be *discussed*, with appropriate tact and due regard for people's
individual feelings.
> >Something like [nam.mj7:h7:4eN.ge:kj7:] can be used; [o]'s instead of
> >[7]'s. The "ge" is normally short, but is lengthened for purposes of
> >repeated chanting. Likewise, the "nam" has been shortened from "namu".
It's useful to have this phonetic information.
--
John Cowan www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arise, you prisoners of Windows / Arise, you slaves of Redmond, Wash,
The day and hour soon are coming / When all the IT folks say "Gosh!"
It isn't from a clever lawsuit / That Windowsland will finally fall,
But thousands writing open source code / Like mice who nibble through a wall.
--The Linux-nationale by Greg Baker
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 13:54:13 -0500
From: John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: NMRK
Blunderingly I wrote:
> I don't mind this being discussed on-list, since we are talking about a
> religious application of language rather than language itself.
Er, make that "religion itself".
--
Said Agatha Christie / To E. Philips Oppenheim John Cowan
"Who is this Hemingway? / Who is this Proust? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Who is this Vladimir / Whatchamacallum, http://www.reutershealth.com
This neopostrealist / Rabble?" she groused. http://www.ccil.org/cowan
--author unknown to me; any suggestions?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:02:41 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [META] Re: OT: NMRK
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 01:14:41PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> I don't mind this being discussed on-list, since we are talking about a
> religious application of language rather than language itself.
So you'd mind if we talked about language itself? Dang, that's what I
thought this list was for! ;-)
It is in any case too late for Buddhist intervention, as Kerry has
conceded, and we get Bush for four more years (or until we're all blown
up, whichever comes first :)).
> > >I know I've defended the No Cross No Crown rule in the past,
>
> Strictly speaking, we have no such rule.
That's good, 'cause the message that started this thread was a
double-threat - cross AND crown, in one swell foop!
> Religion and politics, like text editors and auxlangs,
Redundant. Text editors and auxlangs *are* religions. :)
> may not be *advocated* for here, but they may certainly be *discussed*,
> with appropriate tact and due regard for people's individual feelings.
Recent threads, however, indicate that this is not necessarily possible
on here, which might make total avoidance of the topics a safer choice.
> > >Something like [nam.mj7:h7:4eN.ge:kj7:] can be used; [o]'s instead of
> > >[7]'s. The "ge" is normally short, but is lengthened for purposes of
> > >repeated chanting. Likewise, the "nam" has been shortened from "namu".
>
> It's useful to have this phonetic information.
Indeed. Though now I have to go look up which vowel [7] is. :)
-Marcos
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 20:33:39 +0100
From: Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [META] Re: OT: NMRK
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:02:41 -0500, Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> now I have to go look up which vowel [7] is. :)
So did I. For those who haven't: it's rams-horn (open-mid back
unrounded vowel; unrounded variant of [o]).
Which surprised me a little since AFAIK in normal Japanese, there's
unrounded [M] but rounded [o], but the pronunciation of such
specialised phrases may take a variant pronunciation.
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Watch the Reply-To!
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:37:56 -0500
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: USAGE: rhotics (was: Advanced English + Babel text)
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:06:29 +0100, Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Christophe used to tell us that the uvular trill is as good as dead in the
>French of France today, the uvular fricative being close to universal.
Thank you for this information, Andreas and Sally! I ignored it.
==========================================
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 12:11:30 -0500, Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I've never heard a uvular trill [R\] among francophones; rather, the
>fricative [R] or the unvoiced fricative /x/, especially after "t": "trois,"
>etc. The uvular trills I'm familiar with occur in Hebrew (in fact I was
>just practicing it with a group of Israelis the other night), and among
>certain German speakers. Many Germans, I gather, don't trill, but merely
>fricatize the "r"; but I have a teasing friend who tells me that I sound
>French when I pronounce German. That may well be; my training has been
>mostly in French and Spanish.
Because of the /r/-realization? I would have said that the French accent of
German isn't characterized by a specific realization of /r/, but rather (by
rhythm and melody, of course) by the realization of /�/ , /h/ and /i/.
>The history of |r| and its developments in not only France but Germany and
>England is an interesting and I think quite complex one. Maybe somebody
>else, here, can unpack it. As I understand it, and I may be wrong, /R/ in
>French was a fairly recent development--seventeenth/eighteenth century--and
>until then the common way to pronounce it was as a flap, as in Spanish, or
>a front trill. I know from studying Old French that it was presumed to be
>flapped or trilled. But the change, I have read, came about with changes
>in England and Germany, especially the dropping of final /r/ in England.
>Is this true?
Are you asking whether the change originated in Germany and England (I don't
get the meaning of "the change came about")? I've heard that the uvular
trill was first intoduced by French curtisanes at the court of the absolute
kings, became fashionable among the nobles and spread more and more. German
also had originally a trill-flap, and the uvular pronunciation is said to be
a French import.
It's very interesting that there is a non-rhotic pronunciation in German as
well as in English, even though the two languages' most common
r-realizations are very different: with the tip of the tongue in English and
with the uvula in German. I've always thought of the German non-rhoticity to
be related to the uvular realization of the /r/, but that might be wrong.
By the way, I assume that English also had a trill-flap /r/ originally, but
is there any evidence on the time it was fricativized?
>Never got into Schweizerdeutsch... I don't even know how to spell the way
>they pronounce it there! :( Swizerdutsch? And then all the variations!!
|Schwyzerd�tsch| and |Schwiizert�tsch| may be the most common ways to write
it, but many variations are possible (the |y| is used for /i/ as opposed to
|i| for /I/, but not all share this use).
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
j. 'mach' wust
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 19:39:24 +0000
From: Ray Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: samhain?
On Tuesday, November 2, 2004, at 05:11 , Thomas Leigh wrote:
[snip]
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> I knew about this pronunciation. Would someone help me (us) with
> the
>>> pronunciation of the other three: Beltane, Imbolc and Lughnassadh?
>>
>> Beltane is actually an Anglicisation of "Bealtaine"
>> pronounced /bjOlhi:ni/ = "May".
>
> What dialect of IG is that? Is it really pronounced with a lenited t?
But AFAIK the English word is not directly derived from Irish Gaelic in
any case.
> In SG it's spelt Bealltainn (older: Bealltuinn), pronounced
> /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ or /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/.
Yep - that's what I understood also. The English Beltane (1st May) is
surely from the Scots Gaelic, and it is one of the old four quarter-days
of Scotland; the other three were: Lammas (1st Aug. <-- Old Eng.
_hl�mm�sse_ <-- _hl�fm�sse_ "loaf feast"), Hallowmas (1st Nov.) &
Candlemas (2nd feb.).
Lammas & Candlemas remain quarter days; the other two are now, I believe,
Whitsunday and Martinmas (11th Nov).
> I've read that the "Beall"-/"Bel"-
> part of the name is supposedly the name of an old God whose name in
> Latinized form was Belus,
It's even been associated by some with Baal - but few take that seriously.
> and that the "-tain(n)" part is a development
> of the word for "fire" (mod. SG "teine"), so the name means "Belus'
> fire" and refers to the big bonfires which were traditionally lit at
> night on the eve of May 1
I understood it meant simply "bright fire"
[snip]
> "Imbolc" is not a modern Gaelic name; it violates the rules of both IG
> and SG orthography.
It does, doesn't it? I wonder where it does come from?
===================================================================
On Tuesday, November 2, 2004, at 11:25 , John Cowan wrote:
[snip]
> Wikipedia claims that it's < _i mbolg_ 'out of the belly' and refers
> in some way to pregnant ewes. An alternative name is Oimelc, which is at
> least good OG for 'sheep's milk'.
Is 'imbolg' or 'imbolc' actually attested in any ancient texts?
> In any case, it's Candlemas = St. Brigid's day = Groundhog Day = 1
> February.
...which as we know is the 2nd Feb. :)
> This is a subject thoroughly imbued with "the fabulous Celtic
> twilight [...] not so much of the gods as of the reason":
Indeed - I am sure you are right. Is there any hard and fast evidence, for
example, that the Brittonic group ever celebrated these festivals? The
quarter days of the southern part of the island certainly follow a
different tradition, namely:
Lady Day (25 March, the Annunciation), Midsummer Day (24th June, St. John
the Baptist), Michaelmas (29th September, St Michael & all angels),
Christmas (25th Dec. Midwinter, Yule).
To add to the fun, both "New Style" - with the dates given above - and
"Old Style" (following the Julian Calendar) quarters days are observed for
different purposes. The financial year, for example, begins with the Old
Style Lady Day, now the 6th April, since until we adopted the New Style
calender in 1752 Lady Day was also "New Year's Day". Rather boringly ever
since then New year's Day has been Jan. 1st.
> the
> most sensible article I've found (out of many bad ones) is at
> http://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/7/torma.html
Yes, he gives a IE derivation of Imbolc, but there is still as far as I
see no actual quoting of source material. I assume it must be lifted from
Old Irish/Old Gaelic - but when & where? Or is it really born out of the
twilight of reason? ;)
Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================
Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight,
which is not so much a twilight of the gods
as of the reason." [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:00:14 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [META] Re: OT: NMRK
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 08:33:39PM +0100, Philip Newton wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:02:41 -0500, Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > now I have to go look up which vowel [7] is. :)
>
> So did I. For those who haven't: it's rams-horn (open-mid back
> unrounded vowel; unrounded variant of [o]).
>
> Which surprised me a little since AFAIK in normal Japanese, there's
> unrounded [M] but rounded [o], but the pronunciation of such
> specialised phrases may take a variant pronunciation.
I've read descriptions of Japanese that varied on the roundedness of the
back vowels. Some give [M] and [o], while others give [M] and [7]. Of
course, many actually give [u] and [o], but I write those off as
simplifications for benefit of the linguistically unsophisticated. :)
-Marcos
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 16:04:53 -0500
From: "Pascal A. Kramm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ashamed of [T]? (fy: /T/ -> /t_d/?)
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 05:28:05 -0500, J. 'Mach' Wust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Unless it was merely a matter of a non-native speaker using a word
>>the wrong way, I agree.
>
>Which wouldn't surprise me, since I think this word is a typical faux ami.
>The connotation it gives to me is of |dis|: 'negation', |gust|: 'like' (as
>in Spanish 'gusta'); that is |disgust|: 'not-like'. I confess I was
>surprised of the harsh reactions and learned only then that the main meaning
>of 'disgust' is much stronger than I thought it was, corresponding rather to
>German _Ekel, Abscheu_ than to _Abstoss, Widerwillen_. (Only then I realized
>that I already knew the word _disgusting_ with the correct connotation!)
Well, I've always used "disgust" simply for "not-like", not going even
remotely close to "Ekel, Abscheu" (for which I generally use "loathe", or
also "repulse"), and never had any problems in understanding, until now...
Apparently, this word is perceived quite differently by different people. I
think my rephrashing of "slightly annoyed" made the intended meaning clear.
--
Pascal A. Kramm, author of Choton
official Choton homepage:
http://www.choton.org
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 16:49:58 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ashamed of [T]? (fy: /T/ -> /t_d/?)
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 04:04:53PM -0500, Pascal A. Kramm wrote:
> Well, I've always used "disgust" simply for "not-like",
Then you've *mis*used it. It has much stronger connotations than that.
The word "dislike" would be more along the lines you envisioned.
> not going even
> remotely close to "Ekel, Abscheu" (for which I generally use "loathe", or
> also "repulse"),
Hm.
"That disgusts me."
"That repulses me."
"I loathe that."
I'd have to say that "repulse" is stronger than "disgust", but they're
pretty close, as is "loathe". Very similar words.
Another tricky word is "despise", whose intensity has varied dramatically
over even recent history; these days it's basically a stronger version of
"hate", whereas it used to be semantically different (whence the set phrase
"hate and despise") and then, apparently at one point, it was a *milder*
version of "hate".
For me, an increasing level of repulsion with me as actor is something
like "dislike, hate, despise, detest, loathe". But in verbs with me as
experiencer I don't seem to have anything milder than "disgust" - which
still doesn't make it a mild term! :) Perhaps "bother", but it shares
a connotation with "annoy" (see below) that goes beyond dislike into
irritation. Similarly for "embarrass" - it has extra connotations
beyond mere dislike, but they are quite different from those of "annoy".
> I think my rephrashing of "slightly annoyed" made the intended meaning clear.
I still think "embarrassed" is better. The word "annoyed" has connotations of
being made angry, which I don't think you mean.
-Marcos
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:09:55 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: samhain?
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 07:39:24PM +0000, Ray Brown wrote:
> To add to the fun, both "New Style" - with the dates given above - and
> "Old Style" (following the Julian Calendar) quarters days are observed for
> different purposes. The financial year, for example, begins with the Old
> Style Lady Day, now the 6th April, since until we adopted the New Style
> calender in 1752 Lady Day was also "New Year's Day". Rather boringly ever
> since then New year's Day has been Jan. 1st.
Though for some reason the fiscal date was not further adjusted when the
Julian and Gregorian calendars drifted further apart in 1900; Julian
March 25th is Gregorian April 7th these days.
Based on what I've read, January 1st was always the date called "New
Year's Day"; March 25th was called simply "Lady's Day" even when it was
the date upon which the year number changed.
The old scheme is admittedly more interesting, but for "interesting" I
prefer to switch calendars entirely. :) The Jews, for instance, change
their year number in the fall - rather boringly on the first day of a
month, and on the day called "New Year's" (or, rather, "Head of the
Year") - but less boringly, they *number* their months starting in the
*spring*, so that the calendar year begins in month 7 instead of month
1. So even though AM 5765 just began in September, the day about to begin
at sundown as I write this message is the 20th day of the 8th month.
-Marcos
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 00:54:31 +0200
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: sentances in C-14
http://www.geocities.com/rodlox/Conlangs/c14.html
enjoy.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:48:47 -0500
From: Stephen Mulraney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: /T/ -> /t_d/?
Carsten wrote: (quite a while ago...)
> (A) it would be likely that /T/ changes into /t_d/?
Absolutely - it happens in my local dialect of English
(an area of Dublin), and throughout Irish dialects.
It's very common, though in some places the [t_d] slips
to [t], meaning there's little or no distinction between
/T/ and /t/. In other places, there's a consistant and
wide distinction between the dental and alveolar phonemes.
People illustrate these varieties (both types) by saying
that so-and-so says "dis da' deez and doze" (for "this that
these and those").
The current Taoiseach (Premier), Bertie Ahern, speaks, or
used to speak like this. He might have "fixed" it by now -
it's considered "incorrect".
s.
--
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 19:00:45 -0500
From: Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: USAGE: rhotics (was: Advanced English + Babel text)
----- Original Message -----
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: USAGE: rhotics (was: Advanced English + Babel text)
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:06:29 +0100, Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>Christophe used to tell us that the uvular trill is as good as dead in the
>>French of France today, the uvular fricative being close to universal.
>
> Thank you for this information, Andreas and Sally! I ignored it.
>
> ==========================================
>
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 12:11:30 -0500, Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>I've never heard a uvular trill [R\] among francophones; rather, the
>>fricative [R] or the unvoiced fricative /x/, especially after "t":
>>"trois,"
>>etc. The uvular trills I'm familiar with occur in Hebrew (in fact I was
>>just practicing it with a group of Israelis the other night), and among
>>certain German speakers. Many Germans, I gather, don't trill, but merely
>>fricatize the "r"; but I have a teasing friend who tells me that I sound
>>French when I pronounce German. That may well be; my training has been
>>mostly in French and Spanish.
>
> Because of the /r/-realization? I would have said that the French accent
> of
> German isn't characterized by a specific realization of /r/, but rather
> (by
> rhythm and melody, of course) by the realization of /�/ , /h/ and /i/.
>
>>The history of |r| and its developments in not only France but Germany and
>>England is an interesting and I think quite complex one. Maybe somebody
>>else, here, can unpack it. As I understand it, and I may be wrong, /R/ in
>>French was a fairly recent development--seventeenth/eighteenth
>>century--and
>>until then the common way to pronounce it was as a flap, as in Spanish, or
>>a front trill. I know from studying Old French that it was presumed to be
>>flapped or trilled. But the change, I have read, came about with changes
>>in England and Germany, especially the dropping of final /r/ in England.
>>Is this true?
>
> Are you asking whether the change originated in Germany and England (I
> don't
> get the meaning of "the change came about")? I've heard that the uvular
> trill was first intoduced by French curtisanes at the court of the
> absolute
> kings, became fashionable among the nobles and spread more and more.
> German
> also had originally a trill-flap, and the uvular pronunciation is said to
> be
> a French import.
>
> It's very interesting that there is a non-rhotic pronunciation in German
> as
> well as in English, even though the two languages' most common
> r-realizations are very different: with the tip of the tongue in English
> and
> with the uvula in German. I've always thought of the German non-rhoticity
> to
> be related to the uvular realization of the /r/, but that might be wrong.
>
> By the way, I assume that English also had a trill-flap /r/ originally,
> but
> is there any evidence on the time it was fricativized?
>
>>Never got into Schweizerdeutsch... I don't even know how to spell the way
>>they pronounce it there! :( Swizerdutsch? And then all the
>>variations!!
>
> |Schwyzerd�tsch| and |Schwiizert�tsch| may be the most common ways to
> write
> it, but many variations are possible (the |y| is used for /i/ as opposed
> to
> |i| for /I/, but not all share this use).
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> j. 'mach' wust
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 16:39:14 -0800
From: "B. Garcia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ashamed of [T]? (fy: /T/ -> /t_d/?)
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 16:04:53 -0500, Pascal A. Kramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I've always used "disgust" simply for "not-like", not going even
> remotely close to "Ekel, Abscheu" (for which I generally use "loathe", or
> also "repulse"), and never had any problems in understanding, until now...
Well, you're using it wrong. Ask any _native_ English speaker and
they'll most likely tell you that you're using it wrong. It's likely
that people have "allowed" you to use it the way you have because they
didn't want to seem rude and correct you, or that they thought you
really hated something that strongly.
> Apparently, this word is perceived quite differently by different people.
It has a pretty stable perception among most native English speakers:
something so intensely negative that it makes you feel violently ill.
It is also similar to hate. Most people only use disgust to indicate
something is nasty, or something is morally nasty or loatheful:
"That moldy bread disgusts me!"
"That dead cat on the sidewalk is disgusting!"
"I think cabbage is so gross that it's disgusting!" (I like cabbage, actually)
"I can't believe you'd be so cruel to her, you're a disgusting human being"
"You really believe that she deserved to be raped? You disgust me!"
>I think my rephrashing of "slightly annoyed" made the >intended meaning clear.
That is a better representation of how you feel. Slightly annoyed is
not even close to the connotation that disgust carries.
--
You can turn away from me
but there's nothing that'll keep me here you know
And you'll never be the city guy
Any more than I'll be hosting The Scooby Show
Scooby Show - Belle and Sebastian
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 19:29:30 -0500
From: Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: USAGE: rhotics (was: Advanced English + Babel text)
Good lord, I just used up one of my posts to Conlang by sending an empty
reply. I was attempting to enlarge the message screen and went to the left
hand button instead of the right. Encroaching senility.
----- Original Message -----
From: "J. 'Mach' Wust" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:06:29 +0100, Andreas Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>Christophe used to tell us that the uvular trill is as good as dead in the
>>French of France today, the uvular fricative being close to universal.
>
> Thank you for this information, Andreas and Sally! I ignored it.
>
> ==========================================
>
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 12:11:30 -0500, Sally Caves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>I've never heard a uvular trill [R\] among francophones; rather, the
>>fricative [R] or the unvoiced fricative /x/, especially after "t":
>>"trois,"
>>etc. The uvular trills I'm familiar with occur in Hebrew (in fact I was
>>just practicing it with a group of Israelis the other night), and among
>>certain German speakers. Many Germans, I gather, don't trill, but merely
>>fricatize the "r"; but I have a teasing friend who tells me that I sound
>>French when I pronounce German. That may well be; my training has been
>>mostly in French and Spanish.
>
> Because of the /r/-realization? I would have said that the French accent
> of
> German isn't characterized by a specific realization of /r/, but rather
> (by
> rhythm and melody, of course) by the realization of /�/ , /h/ and /i/.
Actually, I didn't really believe my friend. He said my "r" pronunciation
in German wasn't "robust" enough, but sounded French. Actually, I think my
best linguistic gifts lie in phonic mimicry. (Which is why I thought of
becoming an actress in my late teens). I have a very good ear for
pronunciations and can usually reproduce them pretty well, which has gotten
me in trouble a few times when my rapid comprehension was not up to my
speaking. So no, I'm not giving German the rhythm and melody of French. I
try very hard to get the "robust" rhythms of German, but they are often a
tongue-twister for me.
>>The history of |r| and its developments in not only France but Germany and
>>England is an interesting and I think quite complex one. Maybe somebody
>>else, here, can unpack it. As I understand it, and I may be wrong, /R/ in
>>French was a fairly recent development--seventeenth/eighteenth
>>century--and
>>until then the common way to pronounce it was as a flap, as in Spanish, or
>>a front trill. I know from studying Old French that it was presumed to be
>>flapped or trilled. But the change, I have read, came about with changes
>>in England and Germany, especially the dropping of final /r/ in England.
>>Is this true?
>
> Are you asking whether the change originated in Germany and England (I
> don't
> get the meaning of "the change came about")?
No, I'm asking when it occurred in France. "Came about [occurred]" in
France. Seventeenth-century, I always thought, and I think you answer this
question below.
> I've heard that the uvular
> trill was first intoduced by French curtisanes at the court of the
> absolute
> kings, became fashionable among the nobles and spread more and more.
>
> German
> also had originally a trill-flap, and the uvular pronunciation is said to
> be
> a French import.
Interesting. Not adopted, however, by the English.
> It's very interesting that there is a non-rhotic pronunciation in German
> as
> well as in English, even though the two languages' most common
> r-realizations are very different: with the tip of the tongue in English
> and
> with the uvula in German.
Yes!
> I've always thought of the German non-rhoticity to
> be related to the uvular realization of the /r/, but that might be wrong.
It might be right. I've heard "der" pronounced as though it rhymes with
British English "hair." I'm aware that there must be variations, and I
suspect that the non-rhotocization in both cultures arises from different
causes. A mysterious and curiously unstable sound.
> By the way, I assume that English also had a trill-flap /r/ originally,
> but
> is there any evidence on the time it was fricativized?
I'm unsure what you mean by fricativized when speaking of British English
pronunciation. Do you mean "flapped"? Retroflex? Every American is taught
that the retroflex "r" we use is a carry-over from sixteenth-century English
immigration from the south and the midlands, with variations--such as the
Puritans, who were beginning to drop the final "r" (hence our common
Bostonian "I pahked the cah in the garage")--and a lot of New England, for
that matter. But this is a complex issue that requires me to go digging
about in my History of the English language books. When I pronounce Old
English, I flap the "r" or trill it. We don't know with much certainty how
it was pronounced. It may have been retroflex, for all we know. The
retroflex "r" seems oooold.
>>Never got into Schweizerdeutsch... I don't even know how to spell the way
>>they pronounce it there! :( Swizerdutsch? And then all the
>>variations!!
>
> |Schwyzerd�tsch| and |Schwiizert�tsch| may be the most common ways to
> write
> it, but many variations are possible (the |y| is used for /i/ as opposed
> to
> |i| for /I/, but not all share this use).
Are you Swiss? Do you or have you live(d) in Switzerland?
And what about my other question: is there any evidence in natural
languages of the "r" I described for Teonaht: a retroflex forward flap
against the back of the alveolar ridge? It gives it quite a distinct sound,
to my mind! I need Sampa illustrations of all the different pronunciations
of r. Can someone please supply me with that?
Thanks!
Sally
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 04:21:59 +0200
From: Rodlox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ashamed of [T]? (fy: /T/ -> /t_d/?)
> > I think my rephrashing of "slightly annoyed" made the intended meaning
clear.
>
> I still think "embarrassed" is better. The word "annoyed" has
connotations of
> being made angry,
...or irritated.
the mosquitos annoy me, as I've always found mosquitos to be just less
irritating than gnats.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
![http://WWW.BOLIOPPLE.COM/0/4/4-2.jpg"](http://WWW.BOLIOPPLE.COM/0/4/4-2.jpg"){kind=link}
![http://XdL.03fs2t0WzH4G80.com/4j9.jpg"](http://XdL.03fs2t0WzH4G80.com/4j9.jpg"){kind=link}