Re: beyond langauges

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...> wrote:

>
> At 7:27:11 AM on Saturday, May 3, 2008, jouppe wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Another observation of a contrary development: Modern
> > Icelandic treats Old Norse geminated -ll- in an odd
> > fashion, it becomes devoiced and a precursory -t- is
> > inserted into the pronounciation, for example <gull>
> > [gutL] (where capital L is used for voiceless lateral).
>
> This isn't relevant to your point, but it's actually closer
> to [gYtL].
>

- - - - -
It's sort of a close rounded central vowel. I have almost the same in
my dialect as well in exactly the same word/position. It is not a lot
more front than <oo> in <boot>.
Jouppe
- - - - - -

> > Maybe a Celtic substratum here, does not welsh have
> > voiceless laterals?
>
> Yes, but I believe that they're a relatively late
> development, at least as a distinct phoneme. If I remember
> correctly, Jackson thought it was probably fully established
> by the tenth century but not a whole lot earlier, since it
> doesn't seem to have been recognized earlier as a
> distinctive sound by the Anglo-Saxons.

- - - - - - -
Irish would actually be more relevant to the Icelandic history. The
westmenn were there before the Norse settlement and bringing slaves
from Ireland continued after the settlement as well. I heard
somewhere long ago half the genes of the Icelanders would be celtic.
Jouppe
- - - - - - -

>
> > The interesting point is that AFAIK Icelandic has no
> > contrastive consonant length,
>
> If you analyze it as having contrastive consonant length,
> I'm pretty sure that vowel length becomes completely
> predictable. E.g., <grunnur> 'foundation, base; ground',
> with [n:], must have [Y], while <grunur> 'suspicion', with
> [n], must have [Y:]. This does result in a few odd-looking
> realizations, e.g., [hp] for /p:/ and [tL] for /l:/, but I
> don't know of any real obstacles.

- - - - - - -
In standard Swedish, which historically has done almost exactly the
same with phoneme length as Icelandic, the consonant length is
usually explained as a function of vowel length and not vice versa
(not my dialect by the way, which upholds a more archaic system than
Icelandic).

This is certainly due to the fact that long vowels have developed
quality vise so differently from short ones that it seems easier to
explain the conditioning in this direction.

In Icelandic you would also have to add extra rules for pairs like
traust 'trust' and thröstur 'thrush' (why does -st- allow for a long
diphtong/vowel in one word and produces a short one in another?). It
surely becomes more messy with mofphophonemics also ( e.g. Cv:-st in
monosyllabic words)
It is easier to explain the consonant lenthening, with whatever
preaspiration or "preplosivation", as allophonic after short vowels.
Jouppe