Re: [tied] PIE *akWa: 'water' (was: The role of analogy, alliterati

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 10:21:01 +0200, alex
<alxmoeller@...> wrote:

>"labialised velar" do not say anything.

It says everything. Raise the back of the tongue to the
soft palate (velum) and close the oral passage that way.
Make sure the velum and uvula also close the nasal passage.
Simultaneously, round both lips. Now release the airstream.

>Give us a word in teh actual
>languages where one can pronounce this sound. Theoreticaly constructs are
>nice just as joker, one need the "kW" to hear how is the pronounciation
>here.
>I cannot see which is the difference between Latin "aqua" and Italian "aqua"

The Italian word is acqua /akkwa/.

>in pronounciation so why shouldn't be the "qu" from that word the named
>labiovelar?

There's an important difference between the single phone
[kW] and the cluster [kw].

>> As I understand it, the most popular opinion for the dorsals is:
>>
>> /k^/ was [k]
>> /k/ was [k_q] (any takers for [q]?)
>> /kW/ was [k_w]
>>
>> /k^w/ would then be [kw].
>
>Have the people tried to pronunce these sounds before writing them down?

Of course.

>IE
>was a language , our mother language and its words should have been
>pronounceable not just scriptic ghosts. what should be the difference
>between "k" and "q"

One is a velar voiceless stop, the other a uvular voiceless
stop, like Arabic /k/ and /q/

>, betwen "w" and "W"?

[w] ~ /w/ is a phone/phoneme. W isn't. It's merely a
notational device to signify labialization of the preceding
consonant (IPA superscript w).


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...