[tied] Re: Labiovelar Phonological Identity???

I am speking about contemporary Italian, not the development of the
phonems or distinctions. As far as I can see, there is a phonemic
difference between qu and cu.

The phonemic difference is not the in way the velar component is
pronounced, but in the pronounciation of the labial element. Either
the labial element is asyllabic, or not.

There is however perhaps a possibility to analyze the labial element
in qu as an allophoneme of "v", since I do not remember "cv" used
anywhere in Italian words.

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "altamix" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "squilluncus" <grvs@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > qui-here, quieto-still, cui-which, acuito-sharp
> > > >
> > > > The difference is that in "qu", the labial komponent is more
or
> > > > less overlapping with the velar stop, where in "cu" the
labial
> > > > component is a separate syllable.
> > >
> > >
> > > allow me please the question. Where is the labiovelar in "qui,
> > > queito"? I have the feeling they are written with "qu" just
> > because
> >
> > Aren't you confusing Spanish and Italian (which easily happens)?
> > However in Spanish qu still has a distinct function as
a "hardener"
> > before fronted vowel.
>
> the "c" and "q" in "cu" and "qu" has the same quality in my
opinion.
> I don't hear a difference there.
> >
> > In Latin poetry qu is normally considered a single entity not
> > giving length, a witness that it was considered a single
phoneme.
>
> we don't mean Latin poetry here, we mean Italian and the whole
> Romance who kept the "qu"
>
> > In some polyglot areas (as Pompei) we shouldn't, however,
exclude
> > qu as c + u among speakers having Latin as a second language.
But
> > this never prevailed as witnessed by modern Italian retaining
> > labiovelar and French, Spanish and Portuguese retaining a hard
non-
> > palatalised k before fronted vowels after delabialisation.
> >
> > Lars
> >
>
> is the "labiovelar" who stoped the Palatalisation or was there
just
> the "u"? In Rumanian the labiovelar element could not prevent
anymore
> the palatalisation of the labiovelars, so if Rum. "c^e" is from
> Latin "quid", then begining with II century AD , the word was
> pronounced "ke" (as today in Italian which contrary to the said
> about labiovelars, in "who"-words, Italian did not kept the
> labiovelars).
>
>
> Alex
>