Re: [tied] Czech r^

If there is the very same sound in some African languages, could anyone tell
me which languages, please? And, does it really sound like the Czech r^?

> I am not aware of any sound like that. That Czech sound is a palatal

vibrant

> of two realisational variants: voiced and unvoiced. The closest "relative"
> (phonetical) seems to be the Polish the "rz" sound...
>
>
> Petusek
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <mkapovic@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 12:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Czech r^
>
>
> > It occures in some (south?)African languages. I think I once saw

something

> > about something like r^ in one Italic language, but maybe that was some
> > dream of mine? :-/
> >
> > Mate
> >
> > > I remember rhotics were discussed a year or so ago. I seem to recall
> > > that someone said the notorious Czech r^ sound was not unique to Czech
> > > but occured in some other language as well. Did I dream taht up?
> > > Thanks,
> > > Harald
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Harald Hammarström wrote:
> > >
> > >> Speaking of IE ten, what's Piotr's and you others' take on the
> etymology
> > >> of Russian devyanosto and its Old Polish counterpart?
> > >> Thanks
> > >> Harald
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > On 9/1/04 2:14 PM, Piotr Gasiorowski wrote:
> > >> > > On 8/29/04 11:50 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >>Well, if one starts counting on the fingers of the left hand,
> *dek^m
> > >> > >>or *dek^mt '10' might have meant something like 'right hand full'
> > >> > >>or 'rightmost'. With the former meaning, /mt/ _might_ be
> > >> > >>*met 'measure'. With the latter meaning, /m/ might be the
> > >> > >>superlative suffix. However, why then do we have *dek^m or

*dek^mt

> > >> > >>and not *dek^sm or *dek^smt for '10'?
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Assuming that the *-s- of *dek^s- is some kind of detachable
> suffix,
> > >> and
> > >> > > that *dek^- is an acceptable combinative form, one would expect,

in

> > >> a
> > >> > > hypothetical compound with *met-, *dék^-mot- in the strong cases,
> > >> with
> > >> > > *dek^m.t- as its weak allomoprph. Why then do we have *-(d)k^omt-
> in
> > >> the
> > >> > > decadic numerals? It seems to rule out *-m(e)t-.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Piotr
> > >> >
> > >> > An afterthought: if one wants *dék^m.t to be an analysable

compound,

> > >> the
> > >> > only possibility I can see is *dék^-h1m.t- (gen.pl. *dk^-h1m.t-óm,
> > >> > compositional collective or animate stem *'-(d)k^-h1omt-). The

second

> > >> > element could be *-h1m.-t-, an extended root noun derived from

*h1em-

> > >> > 'take, get' (the *-t- extension is normal after root-final

sonorants

> > >> and
> > >> > laryngeals, cf. *-gWm.t- in compounds), with the approximate

meaning

> > >> > 'taking'. What we gain is a natural explanation of the heterorganic
> > >> > sequence *-mt- and of the early disappearance of the initial *d- in
> > >> > *dk^-. Before a vowel we would expect a "thorny" treatment of *tk^-

<

> > >> > *dk^-, but if a consonant (here, *h1) follows, the expected outcome
> > >> > involves the loss of the initial stop! I'm beginning to like this
> > >> idea.
> > >> >
> > >> > Piotr
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>