[tied] Re: Labiovelar Phonological Identity???

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "squilluncus" <grvs@...> wrote:

> >
> > > 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
>
> Aren't you confusing Spanish and Italian (which easily happens)?
> However in Spanish qu still has a distinct function as a "hardener"
> before fronted vowel.

the "c" and "q" in "cu" and "qu" has the same quality in my opinion.
I don't hear a difference there.

>
> In Latin poetry qu is normally considered a single entity not
> giving length, a witness that it was considered a single phoneme.

we don't mean Latin poetry here, we mean Italian and the whole
Romance who kept the "qu"

> In some polyglot areas (as Pompei) we shouldn't, however, exclude
> qu as c + u among speakers having Latin as a second language. But
> this never prevailed as witnessed by modern Italian retaining
> labiovelar and French, Spanish and Portuguese retaining a hard non-
> palatalised k before fronted vowels after delabialisation.
>
> Lars
>

is the "labiovelar" who stoped the Palatalisation or was there just
the "u"? In Rumanian the labiovelar element could not prevent anymore
the palatalisation of the labiovelars, so if Rum. "c^e" is from
Latin "quid", then begining with II century AD , the word was
pronounced "ke" (as today in Italian which contrary to the said
about labiovelars, in "who"-words, Italian did not kept the
labiovelars).


Alex