Re: [tied] Other IE language with /w/

Miguel Carrasquer wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 11:00:59 +0200, Grzegorz Jagodzinski
> <grzegorj2000@...> wrote:
>
>> The information on Sorbian pronunciation on
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorbian_alphabet is highly incomplete
>> (however, [w] for the Lower Sorbian <w> is mentioned there). My page
>> on Sorbian (http://www.aries.com.pl/grzegorzj/gram/unipl/luzyc.html)
>> is available only in Polish as for now (however some information may
>> be understood). I have based myself on a book in German and
>> informations from a scholar specializing in Sorbian and a Sorbian
>> speaker at the same time.
>>
>> The Upper Sorbian <w> is also [w], at least in some positions, not
>> [v] like Wikipedia says, cf. "w und l sind wie englisches w zu
>> sprechen, also wie u in sauer" from the Upper Sorbian online course
>> (in German): http://sibz.whyi.org/~edi/wucbnica/1.lekcija.html.
>
>
> But cf. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/7636

"Sorbian [w] (which has resulted from the merger of *v [w] and "dark", i.e.
non-palatalised *l) is a bilabial approximant without a conspicuous velar
component"

Erwin Hannusch, the author of the book on which I have based myself, use the
symbol [u] with the inverted arch at the bottom for <w> (except some
position when it is mute or it is pronounced as a weak aspiration). He
states on Lower Sorbian syllable-final <w>:

"In der Position nach Vokalen in geschlossener Silbe verbindet sich der Laut
[u^] (in dieser Position kommt [u^] artikulatorisch und akustisch dem
Vollvokal [u] recht nahe) mit dem vorausgehenden Vokal zu einem unfesten,
fallenden Diphthong".

So, we agree that Sorbian <w> is bilabial, and that it is an approximant -
and the same about the English [w] and the PIE *w. Which is more, the velar
component seems to be conspicuous at least after a vowel in a close syllable
where it comes close to the full vowel [u] articulatorily and acustically.

>
>> You are fully right, and that is why I wrote "I mean the standard
>> version". I was also interested in this problem, and just asked some
>> native Dutch speakers what they think. Basing on what they said I
>> can present the thing this way now: the pronunciation of (initial)
>> <w> as the labio-dental approximant is recommended by some courses
>> and dictionaries (including these I have) but is spread only in some
>> dialects, especially those from the southern part of the Dutch
>> language area.
>
> No.

There is nothing to negate, indeed, unless you want to shake the opinion of
the native speakers. Of course, their knowledge may be limited.

> In the standard languages, <w> is a labiodental
> approximant in the north,
> [...]
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
> mcv@...

So, we agree in the main points - <w> is a labiodental approximant in the
standard pronunciation, and its pronunciation varies from the south to the
north, becoming closer and closer to [v]. All the rest are valuable but less
important details. Especially, if Belgian <w> is bilabial (I hope it is), we
have an even clearer example of preserving IE *w.

Grzegorz J.




___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com