Re: Consonent Clusters at the End of Words Saul Epstein Thu, 13 Nov 1997 15:43:51 -0600 From: Rob Zook Date: Thursday, November 13, 1997 2:29 PM >At 12:34 PM 11/13/97 -0600, Saul wrote: >>From: Rob Zook >>Date: Wednesday, November 12, 1997 4:42 PM >> >>> At 02:53 PM 11/12/97 -0600, Saul wrote: >>> > >>> >a palatal fricative. Also, since Vulcan doesn't otherwise have a >>> >dental fricative, we'd probably end up with a phonetic realization of >>> >[ds] for /dth/. >>> >>> Hmmm. Actually I was thinking of the opposite, a phonemic /dth/ but >>> realized as the [dth] where the was the fricative. >> >>That doesn't sound opposite. Your proposed rule transforms aspirates to >>fricatives when following a voiced stop at the same place of >>articulation. Since Vulcan otherwise has no dental fricative, but does >>have an alveolar fricative nearby, it is likely that the latter would be >>substituted. > >Hmmm..,I guess I'm not saying this clearly. I meant that at the end of >a word a consonent cluster of dt could exist, but only when the final >stop mutates to it's fricative. So I was saying bp would be realized as >bf gk would be realized as gch (the velar fricative), and dt as dth (the >dental fricative). I understand you exactly, but it doesn't sound like you understand me. Are you having the same experience? >Only that does not seem consistant. Since I was thinking only the >degree of closure would change going from t -> th, but the place of >articulation changes as well. So I just dropped the idea and said >lets say the correct transliteration of kaiidth is kai'id'th. > >We could say those clusters could work if the final stop just mutates >to it's frictive with no change in the place of articulation: > >bp -> bwh >dt -> ds >gk -> gch (again the velar fricative) > >But that would not help us explain away dth ;-) > >>> >k -> x is the same relationship, though. As is p -> wh. Oh, wait. >>> >Do you mean the aspirate or the fricative th? >>> >>> I mean the fricative. For example the IPA chart shows no dental >>> stops, and t is a voiceless alveolar stop. >> >>That's a somewhat ambiguous part of the chart. There are dental, >>alveolar, and postalveolar stops, all of which are typically >>represented by , , . This works because it is rare for a >>language to have separate stop phonemes in each of these places. When a >>language does, there are diacritics to distinguish them. > >Ok, but when we use the t here we mean the alveolar stop, right? Other than it being described in the Grammar as comparable to an English sound, I don't think that's ever been addressed. But regardless of which [t] our /t/ turns out to be, it has in general a very flexible position with regards to its relationship to dental and alveolar fricatives. >>> So with t -> th not only does the >>> amount of closure change as in p -> f, and k -> ch, but the point >>> of articulation changes as well, because th as realized in English is >>> a dental fricative not a alveolar fricative. >> >>Technically, the point of articulation is changing in each of your >>examples -- except for t -> th, which might or might not. > >I was confused about p -> f so yeah, but with k -> ch, I mean >k ( the voiceless velar stop) -> ch ( the voiceless velar fricative ), >so how is the place of articulation changing? You originally compared to a voiceless palatal fricative in German, and since you persist in writing it this way rather than with , I keep assuming that's what you're talking about. >>> >That almost makes it look like h is a voiceless form of <'>. >>> >>> Similar. I think /h/ is a voiceless glottal fricative. >> >>Yes. And if I'm right, <'> between two consonants, neither of which can >>be made syllabic, is pronounced as a minimal vowel -- which is a sort of >>voiced [h]. > ><'> would really have to have some kind of vowel component, wouldn't it? >So a word like t'khut would probably sound like [t^' khut]. Where the >[^] would have a really short beginning sound that would cut off >suddenly in the stop. Something like that. While there's no way to eliminate from possibility a Vulcan pronouncing [stop][glottal stop][stop], I think it's almost certain that the coiners of existing Vulcan words didn't intend that when they wrote things like , and this is one situation in which I'm perfectly happy to let the intentions of the coiners guide us. -- from Saul Epstein liberty*uit,net http://www,johnco,cc,ks,us/~sepstein "Surak ow'phaaper thes'hi thes'tca'; thes'phaadjar thes'hi suraketca'." -- K'dvarin Urswhl'at