--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "aquila_grande" <aquila_grande@...>
wrote:
>
> In Italian there is an opposition between "qu" and "cu", examples:
> qui-here, quieto-still, cui-which, acuito-sharp
>
> The difference is that in "qu", the labial komponent is more or
> less overlapping with the velar stop, where in "cu" the labial
> component is a separate syllable.
allow me please the question. Where is the labiovelar in "qui,
queito"? I have the feeling they are written with "qu" just because
of the tradition and nothing more. Of curse, the things are to hear
in "aqua" and "quando" but this is because of the next "a"
after "cu". Since the same examples are to find in Rum. ( where it is
said that the Latin labiovelars changed in "p,b") , I think there is
no labiovelar as such but a diphtong "wa" from an older "o/w" and
nothing more. The diference -if any- is hard to hear :
"qwak&, 1nqwa, 1nqwac^e, qwaie, qwarne ( coacã, încua, încoace,
coaie, coarne).
Of course we see in the other forms of the words if there has been
an "o" or something else there since we have the oposition "corn"
versus "coarne"(qwarne), "încoa"(1nkwa) versus "încolo"(1nkwolo) thus
in the nominative singular there is no "labiovelar" but in plural,
the diphtong gives the labiovelar aspect of the word. (qWa)
Alex