The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => Wild Card => Topic started by: Bobby Isosceles on July 05, 2012, 05:57:39 pm
-
"g̃ (frequently printed ĝ due to typesetting constraints, increasingly transcribed as ŋ) /ŋ/ (likely a velar nasal, as in sing, it has also been argued to be a labiovelar nasal or a nasalized labiovelar[15])."
In terms simple enough for a mouth breathing moron like myself to understand, tell me the difference between a labiovelar nasal and a nasalized labiovelar. Or is it exactly the same thing?
-
Though I suppose if we are talking nasals, I shouldn't be mouth breathing.
-
Wombat's power just went out again and she is so angry and stressed out that she can't think straight. I'll try to come back to this later.
-
When I first saw this thread title, I thought Bobby was invoking Wombat the way you might invoke a deity. Not for actual help, but more to mean, "I am exasperated."
E.g., "Wombat help me, if I have to read one more Facebook update about Obamacare, I will slit my own throat."
I kind of like that interpretation. Wombat being the mind that created all us figments on the sixth day, and all.
Ever may she reign.
-
OK, the power is back on, who knows for how long, and I still don't know what could be the difference between those two things.
The only reason I had any uncertainty is that I don't know why anyone would even use the term "nasalized labiovelar." It is important to note that it was a long time ago now, and that I was a theoretical phonologist, not a phonetician. I dealt with things at a certain level of abstraction - there are some surface phonetic differences that are basically never important grammatical differences, and at the level of analysis that I worked at, those things are glossed over.
But in this case I don't see how there could be a difference. There's either nasal airflow or there isn't, right? And if you're reading something about a historical reconstruction, which I assume you are, we can't even reconstruct the phonology for sure, so there's no hope of teasing apart subtle phonetic variants.
-
OK, the power is back on, who knows for how long, and I still don't know what could be the difference between those two things.
The only reason I had any uncertainty is that I don't know why anyone would even use the term "nasalized labiovelar." It is important to note that it was a long time ago now, and that I was a theoretical phonologist, not a phonetician. I dealt with things at a certain level of abstraction - there are some surface phonetic differences that are basically never important grammatical differences, and at the level of analysis that I worked at, those things are glossed over.
But in this case I don't see how there could be a difference. There's either nasal airflow or there isn't, right? And if you're reading something about a historical reconstruction, which I assume you are, we can't even reconstruct the phonology for sure, so there's no hope of teasing apart subtle phonetic variants.
Not just a historical reconstruction, but a historical reconstruction of a dialect or sociolect of a language isolate (Emesal Sumerian, if you care) that may or may not have been a separate language. Which is cool and all, I just didn't know why they'd use two different terms for the same thing. I'd imagine nasalized labiovelars (or labiovelar nasals) would sound like "ngw" -- there is a corresponding allophone for intervocalic /h/ in the unrelated language of Avestan, so I figure it's just "gw" with the tongue stuck to the palate.
Thanks for the confirmation.