Aiya Lambengolmor,



Well, here's one to discuss the latest publications.

I've already posted ths on TolkLang, but I guess

there won't be trouble if I try to initiate the

discussion here as well.



While I was re-reading VT43 again, the following caught my eye on p. 33,

"the contemporary list of prepositions mentioned in the discussion of

_aselye_ above gives the root _ara_ 'along side' (in apparent contrast

with another root, _ada_ 'against, opposed to, opposite)...'



Carl informs me that the 'roots' in question are apparently Eldarin,

not Quenya. Thus the initial point I raised on TolkLang is sated.

However, it is still obvious that these two roots would merge if all

we surmise about the behaviour of Quenya consonants holds true.

Nevertheless, given the roots' opposite meanings, I would suggest that

it is possible that the _d_ > _r_ shift should be blocked by the

necessity of disambiguation. It doesn't seem likely that antonyms

should be homonyms in a language (oh yes, there's Mandarin _míng_ which

means both 'bright' and 'dark', but still...). Therefore the question

is still valid - can sound changes be blocked by semantic necessities

in Quenya? Can then the _d_ in _Aldudénië_ be written off to

disambiguation requirements?



Pavel

(who is more and more amazed at he pace the list appears to have taken!)

--

Pavel Iosad               pavel_iosad@...



'I am a philologist, and thus a misunderstood man'

                  --JRR Tolkien, _The Notion Club Papers_



--------------------------------------



[I should point out that there is a measure of fluidity to the list of

prepositional elements in question, so that simply because two elements

are found together in the list, and neither is crossed out, does not

_necessarily_ mean that Tolkien intended both to coexist. I would further

point out that since these are Eldarin elements, even if these two

elements did coexist in the parent language, it is not necessarily the

case that they would both survive into Quenya. It may well be that one of

the convergent elements would be selected over the other, which would

then have no reflexes in the descendant language. Still, your question

about the influence of semantics on phonological development remains,

and is quite interesting. Carl]

On 5/31/02 7:42 PM, "Pavel Iosad" <pavel_iosad@...> wrote:



> While I was re-reading VT43 again, the following caught my eye on p. 33,

> "the contemporary list of prepositions mentioned in the discussion of

> _aselye_ above gives the root _ara_ 'along side' (in apparent contrast

> with another root, _ada_ 'against, opposed to, opposite)...'



There is another factor to consider about the possible convergence of these

two particular roots. While "along side" and "against, opposed to, opposite"

may seem impossibly disparate in sense, English itself shows a blending and

blurring of these concepts. Consider: if I say I am fighting _with_ someone,

only context can determine whether I mean that I am fighting _against_

someone, or fighting _along side_ them. Either interpretation is possible.

And if I say I am _against_ something, I can mean that I am _opposed_ to it,

or that I am _along side_ it (here, the nature of the thing say I am against

will likely be determinative).





|======================================================================|

| Carl F. Hostetter      Aelfwine@...     http://www.elvish.org |

|                                                                      |

|                ho bios brachys, he de techne makre.                  |

|                      Ars longa, vita brevis.                         |

|            The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.             |

|    "I wish life was not so short," he thought.  "Languages take      |

|    such a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about."   |

|======================================================================|

Hello,



Carl wrote:



> There is another factor to consider about the possible convergence

> of these two particular roots. While "along side" and "against,

> opposed to, opposite" may seem impossibly disparate in sense,

> English itself shows a blending and blurring of these concepts.



Fair point. As a matter of fact, these things can blend in other

(Indo-European?) languages as well. In Russian, for example, the

situation with 'fighting' is identical to the English. The question

however reamins - would the two roots merge on the phonemic

level or not? I would contend that it is possible that the two

roots do remain asunder. We could try and reconstruct the

earliest root as *AD-A with the meaning of 'adjunction', possibly.

It would then show divergence in later Eldarin, mainly in the

Vanyarin dialects. And we still don't know whether these could

converge _back_ in Quenya (gues it is possible they wouldn't).

Alternately, this could be a case of a hypothetic D/R variation,

similar to the alternation of D/L, referred to in XI:363.



But then, it's been a long time since I told myself not to build

grandiose theories out if a single example! The above is pretty

likely to be completely bogus :-)



Pavel

--

Pavel Iosad               pavel_iosad@...



'I am a philologist, and thus a misunderstood man'

                  --JRR Tolkien, _The Notion Club Papers_



---------------------------------------



[Even if "completely bogus", it is thoughtfully constructed and

raises interesting questions about language that are worthy of

exploration. Carl]

Pavel Iosad wrote:



> Nevertheless, given the roots' opposite meanings, I would suggest

> that it is possible that the _d_ > _r_ shift should be blocked by

> the necessity of disambiguation.



I don't think so.  The prime directive is:  No /d/ in Quenya

except in the combinations /ld nd rd/ (LR:1155).



> It doesn't seem likely that antonyms should be homonyms in a

> language (oh yes, there's Mandarin _míng_ which means both

> 'bright' and 'dark', but still...).



There's also Mandarin _guai1_ (1) `obedient, well-behaved';

(2) contrary, in spite of'.  Or Russian _zadut'_ `blow out

(a candle); blow in (a blast-furnace)', _zalechit' `heal (a

wound); doctor (a patient) to death'.  Or Persian <qarIb>

`close, kin' and its homophone <.garIb> `strange, alien'.

Or the famous English examples such as _cleave_.



Languages don't exactly love this kind of thing, but they

can live with it.  And when they do seek to eliminate it,

they do so by replacing one of the conflicting lexical

units by a synonym, not by irregular application of

an otherwise regular sound shift.



> Therefore the question is still valid - can sound changes

> be blocked by semantic necessities in Quenya?



I'll grant that such consideration might catalyse or inhibit

an instance of a sound shift in a particular word in Quenya,

provided that the irregularly derived word is still in line

with the language's phonology, incl. phonotactics.  However,

when a sound is generally on its way out, its exceptional

preservation in one or two words on semantic grounds is high

on my list of things that just can't happen.



> Can then the _d_ in _Aldudénië_ be written off

> to disambiguation requirements?



I think _Aldudénië_ has to be a misreading or a miswriting,

or perhaps a word wrongly interpreted as Quenya.



--

<fa-al-_haylu wa-al-laylu wa-al-baydA'u ta`rifunI

  wa-as-sayfu wa-ar-rum.hu wa-al-qir.tAsu wa-al-qalamu>

                        (Abu t-Tayyib Ahmad Ibn Hussayn al-Mutanabbi)

Ivan A Derzhanski                   <http://www.math.bas.bg/ml/iad/>

H: cplx Iztok bl 91, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria          <iad@...>

W: Dept for Math Lx, Inst for Maths & CompSci, Bulg Acad of Sciences

Hello,



Ivan wrote:



(not that I am not convinced...)



[...]

> > It doesn't seem likely that antonyms should be homonyms in a

> > language (oh yes, there's Mandarin _míng[2]_ which means both

> > 'bright' and 'dark', but still...).

>

> There's also Mandarin _guai1_ (1) `obedient, well-behaved';

> (2) contrary, in spite of'.  Or Russian _zadut'_ `blow out

> (a candle); blow in (a blast-furnace)', _zalechit' `heal (a

> wound); doctor (a patient) to death'.  Or Persian <qarIb>

> `close, kin' and its homophone <.garIb> `strange, alien'.



I'm no expert at Persian, but as regards the first two (actually three)

examples, the syntactic properties and/or context are sufficient to make

clear which meaning is intended. As regards Quenya, clearly the

distributive properties of the two will be identical (but hey, there's

the case system which can be used for disambiguation after all!).



> Or the famous English examples such as _cleave_.



Again, there are the sytactic properties ('cleave to sth.' vs. 'cleave

sth.')



[...]

OK, so we can establish that the two roots may have fallen together.

Anyone has suggestions on which cases to use with which _*ara_?

(Allative vs. Ablative? Dative vs. Ablative? Or something completely

different?)



[...]

> I think _Aldudénië_ has to be a misreading or a miswriting,



For what? :-))



> or perhaps a word wrongly interpreted as Quenya.



What is it then? Obviously not Telerin - no _*#g-_!



Pavel

--

Pavel Iosad               pavel_iosad@...



'I am a philologist, and thus a misunderstood man'

                  --JRR Tolkien, _The Notion Club Papers_

Apart from _Aldudenie_, what known instances of Quenya _d_ between

vowels are known?



If _Aldudenie_ is the only example, perhaps it is a stray mistake by

Tolkien and if he had lived longer he would have found and corrected

it.



[It has been suggested many times before that _Aldudenie_, composed

by a Vanyarin elf, is a Vanyarin, not Quenya, title. Carl]

> [It has been suggested many times before that _Aldudenie_, composed

> by a Vanyarin elf, is a Vanyarin, not Quenya, title. Carl]



The best discussion I can remember about the possibility that *_-dénie_

was the Vanyarin cognate of Noldorin _nainie_, "lament", is the #5885

message of Elfling, by Ales Bican:



	 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling/message/5885



As he said, it's hard to believe that it could be a typo by Tolkien,

since the word _Aldudénie_ appears in different manuscripts and

texts carefully revised by Tolkien.



By the way, I introduce myself in this list, as member of the

Lambenor Spanish-speaking mailing-list, and the Team of

Languages of the Spanish Tolkien Society.



------

Eleder



"La fantasía se inocula en tu intelecto cual vacuna contra la sórdida

subsistencia, cuando el aguijón de John Ronald Reuel Tolkien se

inserta en los patológicos hemisferios cerebrales de todo lector que

padezca el acierto de acceder a su terapéutica saga."

Hello All,



Answering my question on Quenya intervocalic -d-'s, Ivan wrote:



> The prime directive is:  No /d/ in Quenya

> except in the combinations /ld nd rd/ (LR:1155).



Which leads us to the problem of a proper phonological analysis of

Quenya. To wit: are the 'nasalised' voiced stops /mb nd ñg/ single

phonemes, or biphonemic sequences?



I hold it is the latter.



But evidence is scanty, and I would like to discuss this question with a

more knowledgeable company. So what would the assembly's opinion be,

taking into account the following pieces of evidence:



1) Consistent use of the word _combinations_ in Appendix E when

referring to Grades 2 and 4 seems to argue that the sequence is

biphonemic.



2) These groups were clearly considered "long" for purposes of stress in

early (and later) Sindarin, as per LR:1089 (it appears I am using a

different edition than Ivan above). This would imply that in the

structure of a word like _*periandath_ the _a_ in the penult qualifies

as a vowel followed by two consonants, ergo /nd/ is biphonemic. This

meets two objections - even early Sindarin is not Quenya (though I'd

assume the phonological workings of the two would be exceptionally

similar), and the second of a more fundamental nature. If we assume /nd/

is monophonemic, the stress would still fall on the penult in this case,

since /nd/ (be it mono- or biphonemic) is an impermissible onset, since

no word in Quenya begins with it. On yet another hand, this latter

argument could be taken as evidence for the biphonemic status of the

group in question, as the restriction could then be explained in terms

of the restriction on initial clusters in Quenya.



3) There is little reason to distinguish /nd/ from /ld/ and /rd/. The

latter are clearly biphonemic. It would then seem that a voiced stop is

in a strong position when clustered with an alveolar sonorant. It is

unclear whether /b/ shifted to /v/ after /l/ as a matter of some later

dialect, or of a regular phonological process (since it appears that the

Elves themselves did use _lb_ (LR:1095)). To clarify: /g/ shifted to a

voiced /h/ regularly in Ukrainian and southern Russian dialects,

however, there was no process of a regular voiced stop > homorganic

voiced fricative shift. The only argument to see nasalisation as

phonemically relevant attribute is its typological justification.

Otherwise, we could as well argue that /ld/ is a phoneme while /nd/ and

/rd/ are biphonemic. This doesn't seem likely at all



4) However, there are clear cases of metathesis (e.g. in the past tense

of basic verbs). A biphonemic sequence yielding a single phoneme is not

at all impossible (cf. the conduct of Slavic *tj and *dj). Why would

*_tek-ne_ yield *_tencë_? An answer might be positing not a metathesis

(i.e. not the development of two sounds), but a nasalisation of the last

consonant of a CVC- root as a phonological process a bit like the Irish

attenuation and broadening (caolú and leathnú). Such an interpretation

seems to be an argument for the monophonemic status.



Overall, I still think the biphonemic interpretation is the better one,

not the least because it is the less complex one. I am sure there is

more to it than the outline above.



Any comments?



Pavel

--

Pavel Iosad               pavel_iosad@...



'I am a philologist, and thus a misunderstood man'

                  --JRR Tolkien, _The Notion Club Papers_

--- Pavel Iosad <pavel_iosad@...> wrote:



> Which leads us to the problem of a proper phonological analysis of

> Quenya. To wit: are the 'nasalised' voiced stops /mb nd ñg/ single

> phonemes, or biphonemic sequences?



They can only be biphonemic.  The question is are they coarticulated

or not?  For example, Ladefoged ignores "phonemes" like [tS] and [d3]

in the IPA, in fact they aren't in the IPA, because his phonetic work

has shown that they are two sounds that are coarticulated (see

Ladefoged _A Course in Phonetics_ 1975. 4th edition).  Clusters like

[mb], found in some African languages etc., are also not in the IPA

because they are coarticulated.



I believe by phoneme you mean coarticulate and by biphonemic you mean

two independently articulated segments.



A crucial test (which may be beyond us) is to see if the cluster

splits into a coda and an onset:



e.g. /lambe/ > 1. [lam.be] or 2. [la.mbe].



If (1) then the cluster has two independently articualted segments;

if (2) then the cluster is coarticulated and thus a "phoneme."



An example from English is 'judging:' /d3Ud3 + Ing/ > [d3U.d3Ing],

where /ng/ = the sound ingma, i.e. the velar nasal.  In the English

example it's clear that /d3/ is coarticulated as the sound does not

split across syllable boundaries.



I don't remember if Tolkien has given us discriptions of the

syllabification of these clusters.  If he hasn't then we need to

listen again to his recordings (but these maybe inaccurate as he

wasn't a native speaker of Quenya, alas).



Candon





__________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

Hello,

Candon wrote:

> > Which leads us to the problem of a proper phonological analysis

> > of Quenya. To wit: are the 'nasalised' voiced stops /mb nd ñg/

> > single phonemes, or biphonemic sequences?

>

> They can only be biphonemic.



Evidence? :-) I do agree, but still... :-)



> I believe by phoneme you mean coarticulate and by biphonemic you

> mean two independently articulated segments.



As a matter of fact, I was referring to the phoneme as a unit of

structural analysis (which And rejects, just don't beat me now :-))

and not as a segment in the speech.



> A crucial test (which may be beyond us) is to see if the cluster

> splits into a coda and an onset:

>

> e.g. /lambe/ > 1. [lam.be] or 2. [la.mbe].

>

> If (1) then the cluster has two independently articualted segments;

> if (2) then the cluster is coarticulated and thus a "phoneme."



I believe coarticulation in Quenya at least isn't the primary test,

as demonstrated by the fact that the Quenya _qu_, which was

pronounced as a cluster (in the Third Age at least), was still

permitted word-initially, demonstrating it was not a cluster

phonologically.



Besides, the syllabification test allows both interpretations, as

the whole of the /nd/ group obviously is included in the prceding

syllable, as per the Maximum Onset Principle. Quenya words do not

start in /d/, ergo /d/ is an impermissible onset. Ditto with /nd/,



Pavel

--

Pavel Iosad               pavel_iosad@...



'I am a philologist, and thus a misunderstood man'

                  --JRR Tolkien, _The Notion Club Papers_

Hi,



--- pavel_iosad <pavel_iosad@...> wrote:



>>> Which leads us to the problem of a proper phonological analysis

>>> of Quenya. To wit: are the 'nasalised' voiced stops /mb nd ñg/

>>> single phonemes, or biphonemic sequences?



Candon wrote:

>> They can only be biphonemic.



Pavel wrote:

> Evidence? :-) I do agree, but still... :-)



The evidence is in acoustic phonetics which shows overlapping

wave-forms for sounds like [tS], i.e. [t] peaks and before its wave

has ended [S] begins.



I believe this work was started in the 50's and 60's at Edinburgh,

which perhaps means Tolkien was aware of it.



Candon wrote:

>> I believe by phoneme you mean coarticulated and by biphonemic you

>> mean two independently articulated segments.



Pavel wrote:

> As a matter of fact, I was referring to the phoneme as a unit of

> structural analysis (which And rejects, just don't beat me now :-))

> and not as a segment in the speech.



The acoustic analysis is clear that this isn't so, but for

convenience and a shorthand lable, perhaps we could call

coarticulated segments a phoneme (as long as we remember that they

are not).



Candon wrote:

>> A crucial test (which may be beyond us) is to see if the cluster

>> splits into a coda and an onset:

>> e.g. /lambe/ > 1. [lam.be] or 2. [la.mbe].

>> If (1) then the cluster has two independently articualted segments;

>> if (2) then the cluster is coarticulated and thus a "phoneme."



Pavel wrote:

> I believe coarticulation in Quenya at least isn't the primary test,

> as demonstrated by the fact that the Quenya _qu_, which was

> pronounced as a cluster (in the Third Age at least), was still

> permitted word-initially, demonstrating it was not a cluster

> phonologically.



I'm not sure I follow this.  In English we have word initial /kw/ and

it is biphonemic.  Quenya <qu> seems to be of the same sort.



Pavel wrote:

> Besides, the syllabification test allows both interpretations, as

> the whole of the /nd/ group obviously is included in the prceding

> syllable, as per the Maximum Onset Principle. Quenya words do not

> start in /d/, ergo /d/ is an impermissible onset. Ditto with /nd/,



I'm not sure it's obvious.  It's true that Quenya only allows

palatalized or labialized consonant clusters word initially, but what

happens word internally isn't clear.



So, your claim is because /d/ is never an onset /nd/ will not split

word internally.  I don't believe this _has_ to be true.  But let's

say it is.  What about the cluster /nt/?  /t/ is allowed in onset

position.  So the syllabification of a word like _tintalle_ > 1.

[tin.tal.le], or 2. [tint.al.le] will help us decide if clusters are

coarticulated or not.



Perhaps we can make an argument based on Tolkien's asthetic tastes to

help us decide.  It's clear that Tolkien was interested in creating a

euphonic language.  Which is the more euphonic syllabification of

Quenya _sinda_?  1. [sin.da] or 2. [sind.a]  It seems clear to me

that (1) is more euphonic, and it is easier to articulate (the same

can be said of _tintalle_(1)above.  Ease of articulation also seems

to have been important to Tolkien (cf. /n/ + /s/ > [ss] (e.g.

_Elessar_).



Notice also that when segments assimilate (for ease of

articulation) they don't disappear.  This would indicate that both

segments [ss] in _Elessar_ are pronounced (as compared with

_*elesar_.



If both segments are indeed pronounced, this in turn seems to

indicate that the cluster is _not_ coarticulated as the best way to

make [ss] salient (i.e. perceivable) is to split the cluster [s.s]





If we don't have Tolkien's ideas on syllabification (and I haven't

had time to look into it), then his desire for euphony and ease of

articulation perhaps can shed some light on whether quenya clusters

are coarticulated, i.e. "phonemic," or not.



Candon



__________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

Hello,



I'm still sceptical about acoustic evidence, nevertheless.



Candon wrote:

[...]

> The acoustic analysis is clear that this isn't so, but for

> convenience and a shorthand lable, perhaps we could call

> coarticulated segments a phoneme (as long as we remember that they

> are not).



But I was trying to find out exactly whether they are or are not! :-)





> > I believe coarticulation in Quenya at least isn't the primary

> > test, as demonstrated by the fact that the Quenya _qu_, which

> > was pronounced as a cluster (in the Third Age at least), was

> > still permitted word-initially, demonstrating it was not a

> > cluster phonologically.

>

> I'm not sure I follow this.  In English we have word initial /kw/

> and it is biphonemic.  Quenya <qu> seems to be of the same sort.



Quenya doesn't allow initial clusters at all. Thus, _qu_, which is

permissible initially, is _not_ a cluster



> I'm not sure it's obvious.  It's true that Quenya only allows

> palatalized or labialized consonant clusters word initially, but

> what happens word internally isn't clear.



I'd say that the palatalized and labilaized sounds are precisely

monophonemic.



> So, your claim is because /d/ is never an onset /nd/ will not split

> word internally.  I don't believe this _has_ to be true.  But let's

> say it is.  What about the cluster /nt/?  /t/ is allowed in onset

> position.



Good point, but it is obvious that the unvoiced stops have much

fewer phonotactical restrcitions imposed on them than the voiced

ones.



On the ohter hand, this example amply demonstrates that /mp nt ng/

are biphonemic sequences. This would mean that plosives

(phonemically) present a rather strange system /p/ ~ /b/ ~ /mb/.

Such a system is highly untypological. The only structurally

analogous situation I can think is the traditional PIE

reconstruction (substitute aspiration ofr nasalisation). But that

may precisely have been the inspiration! It would be "very

Tolkien" :-)



[...]

> If we don't have Tolkien's ideas on syllabification (and I haven't

> had time to look into it), then his desire for euphony and ease of

> articulation perhaps can shed some light on whether quenya clusters

> are coarticulated, i.e. "phonemic," or not.



Still, I do not see any direct correlation between coarticulation

and monopohnemic status.



But perhaps the better-learned ones here will clarify it for me...:-)



Pavel

--

Pavel Iosad               pavel_iosad@...



'I am a philologist, and thus a misunderstood man'

                  --JRR Tolkien, _The Notion Club Papers_

Candon McLean wrote:

> --- pavel_iosad <pavel_iosad@...> wrote:

> >>> are the 'nasalised' voiced stops /mb nd Óg/

> >>> single phonemes, or biphonemic sequences?

[...]

> >> They can only be biphonemic.

[...]

> The evidence is in acoustic phonetics which shows overlapping

> wave-forms for sounds like [tS], i.e. [t] peaks and before

> its wave has ended [S] begins.



Acoustic phonetics is not about phonemes at all.  Whatever sequence

of wave forms the language treats as a phoneme is by virtue of that

fact a phoneme.



> > I believe coarticulation in Quenya at least isn't the primary test,

> > as demonstrated by the fact that the Quenya _qu_, which was

> > pronounced as a cluster [...], was still permitted word-initially,

> > demonstrating it was not a cluster phonologically.

>

> I'm not sure I follow this.  In English we have word initial /kw/

> and it is biphonemic.  Quenya <qu> seems to be of the same sort.



English allows word-initial (and generally syllable-initial)

clusters.  Quenya doesn't.  So the evidence of English isn't

automatically relevant to Quenya.



> Pavel wrote:

> > Besides, the syllabification test allows both interpretations, as

> > the whole of the /nd/ group obviously is included in the prceding

> > syllable, as per the Maximum Onset Principle. Quenya words do not

> > start in /d/, ergo /d/ is an impermissible onset. Ditto with /nd/,

[...]

> So, your claim is because /d/ is never an onset /nd/ will not split

> word internally.  I don't believe this _has_ to be true.



As a matter of fact, it does not.  Think of Finnish medial /ht/.

It has to split as /h/+/t/, because a cluster can be neither an

onset nor a coda, but we have to live with the fact that /h/ can

be a coda of a non-final syllable (though not a final one).



--Ivan

Candon McLean wrote:



>>> They can only be biphonemic.

>> Evidence? :-) I do agree, but still... :-)

>The evidence is in acoustic phonetics which shows

>overlapping wave-forms for sounds like [tS], i.e. [t] peaks and

>before its wave has ended [S] begins.



Few sounds in speech are *not* coarticulated in that sense. For

example, by anticipatory coarticulation, /k/ has lip rounding in the

word "coo". The labialized feature of the vowel is anticipated in

the realization of the velar stop, [k^w]. That would be an example

of coarticulation. But "biphonemic" of course refers to a

sequence of two phonemes. These phonemes may or may not

be further analysed into sequences of sounds on the phonetic

level, but that is irrelevant here. It is important to remember that

phonemes, while the smallest units of speech *phonologically*

speaking, are not necessarily "atomic" *phonetically* speaking

but may be broken down into smaller segments of sound.

Affricates are sequences of homorganic sounds on the phonetic

level that make up single units on the phonological level: they

are phonemes (no scare quotes). In his _Course in Phonetics_

earlier referred to, Ladefoged points out that "From the point of

view of a phonologist considering the sound patterns of English,

the palato-alveolar affricates are plainly single units" (3rd ed.,

63). I don't have the 4th ed. though.



Sorry if I missed your point and just reiterated the obvious.



/Fredrik Ström

Ivan and Fredrik both wrote that phonetic analysis isn't relevant to

phonemes (or something similar to that effect).



I agree.  My mistake.  Indeed sounds like [tS] are phonemes.



The point I was trying to make is that these kind of complex phonemes

with coarticulated sounds can't be split, and so if we wanted to test

whether Quenya clusters are phonemic or not, we should be able to do

so by focusing on the coarticulated properties of these sounds (like

affricates, etc).



Candon





__________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com