Re: [tied] Czech r^

I can't remember which language exactly, but I'm pretty sure I saw that
somewhere.
Polish /rz/ *was* like Czech /r^/ but now it's just plain /z^/ or /s^/ if
devoiced.

Mate

> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>