 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » does any romance language neutralize the difference... |
|
Page 1 of 10 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| ranjit_mathews at (no spam) yahoo.com... |
 Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
For example, is a distinction observable between the pronunciations of
l and gl in these two proper names*, or is the difference neutralized
such that both the <li> and <gli> are pronounced the same:
1) Italia
2) Tartaglia
* Notes:
1) tartaglia (starting with a little t) is a common noun meaning
stammerer
2) Being proper names, these are not pronounced only by Italians but
also by other Romance speakers; what I'm asking is whether speakers of
any Romance language, not just Italian, neutralize the difference. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 5:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 16, 8:06 am, "ranjit_math... at (no spam) yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]For example, is a distinction observable between the pronunciations of
l and gl in these two proper names*, or is the difference neutralized
such that both the <li> and <gli> are pronounced the same:
1) Italia
2) Tartaglia
* Notes:
1) tartaglia (starting with a little t) is a common noun meaning
stammerer
2) Being proper names, these are not pronounced only by Italians but
also by other Romance speakers; what I'm asking is whether speakers of
any Romance language, not just Italian, neutralize the difference.
[/quote]
That's not what "neutralize" means. I suspect you may be asking after
the origin of the two different spellings. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Marco Pagliero... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 16 Nov., 14:06, ranjit_mathews wrote:
[quote]For example, is a distinction observable between the pronunciations of
l and gl in these two proper names*, or is the difference neutralized
such that both the <li> and <gli> are pronounced the same:
1) Italia
2) Tartaglia
...what I'm asking is whether speakers of
any Romance language, not just Italian, neutralize the difference.
[/quote]
In Italian it is normally a big difference, even if actually a few
people say Itaglia and a few say Tartalia. The former is generally
considered an error and the latter a speech defect, just like V for R
or F for S.
French people would say routinely Tartag-liá , separating G from L,
but if asked to pronounce it as a group, they seem unable to do so and
say instead anything between a double L and an Y (like their own
double L in Montpeiller => MonpeYé). But in "les Italiens" they say LI
just as LI.
Portuguese pronounce their LH in a very similar way as Italians their
GLI: hear "agulhas" in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZHbeD1OzJQ at
0:11 and 0:13.
About Spaniards, I cannot exactly hear if what they say is SeviGLIa,
but it is anyway more similar to that than a simple SeviYYa or
SevilYa.
Piemontais people (west of north Italy) are perfectly able to
pronounce italian GLI but in the language itself GLI doesn't exist:
Paglia (Hay) => Paja (PaYa), while Italia is ItalYa just as in
Italian. The same eg. in Ventian.
I believe that the roman dialect has neither LI nor GLI and does write
"j" and say Y for both (Itaja, tartaja) . This would be the only
example of an identification or equalisation of both sounds.
Ciao
Marco P |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Marco Pagliero... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 17 Nov., 17:42, Harlan Messinger wrote:
[quote]It's relevant in that I'm questioning that French people would leave out
the lateral altogether because they have no trouble with a lateral in
that position.
I don't understand what you mean. I said that french people say the[/quote]
"li" in "italiens" the same way I say it, but they don't say the "gli"
in "tartaglia" the same way I say it. If they have no trouble with
alliance they have trouble with tartaglia, and probably they are not
unable to say it, but they _hear_ only the L and not the G, or what
the G is meant to indicate.
[quote]By the way, could any of you please explain for us what IS the
difference between the way Italians say -aglia and the way they say
-alia? I don't think it's a matter of syllabification because AIUI -glia
and -lia are both one syllable. Is it palatalization of the /l/?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
IANAL, I'm not a linguist, so I cannot explain it to you. In[/quote]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zb-IdMFbIs
she says at 0:6 "realizzazione di una maglia blu molto semplice". This
"aglia" is for me very different from the "allia" in alliance. The
"lh" in portuguese sounds for me similar to it, also the λί in
Μπουμπουλίνα as it is pronounced in Athens: something like
"Bubuglina".
If you hear only "mallia" or "malia" no problem, most french, german
and other people do the same. Most Italians don't hear the H in
"human" and "hostage" at all, for example.
Marco P |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Harlan Messinger... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Marco Pagliero wrote:
[quote]On 16 Nov., 14:06, ranjit_mathews wrote:
For example, is a distinction observable between the pronunciations of
l and gl in these two proper names*, or is the difference neutralized
such that both the <li> and <gli> are pronounced the same:
1) Italia
2) Tartaglia
...what I'm asking is whether speakers of
any Romance language, not just Italian, neutralize the difference.
In Italian it is normally a big difference, even if actually a few
people say Itaglia and a few say Tartalia. The former is generally
considered an error and the latter a speech defect, just like V for R
or F for S.
French people would say routinely Tartag-liá , separating G from L,
but if asked to pronounce it as a group, they seem unable to do so and
say instead anything between a double L and an Y (like their own
double L in Montpeiller => MonpeYé). But in "les Italiens" they say LI
just as LI.
[/quote]
Really? Because they have no problem saying their own word, "alliance". |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ekkehard Dengler... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Harlan Messinger wrote:
[quote]Marco Pagliero wrote:
On 16 Nov., 14:06, ranjit_mathews wrote:
For example, is a distinction observable between the pronunciations
of l and gl in these two proper names*, or is the difference
neutralized such that both the <li> and <gli> are pronounced the
same: 1) Italia
2) Tartaglia
...what I'm asking is whether speakers of
any Romance language, not just Italian, neutralize the difference.
In Italian it is normally a big difference, even if actually a few
people say Itaglia and a few say Tartalia. The former is generally
considered an error and the latter a speech defect, just like V for R
or F for S.
French people would say routinely Tartag-liá , separating G from L,
but if asked to pronounce it as a group, they seem unable to do so
and say instead anything between a double L and an Y (like their own
double L in Montpeiller => MonpeYé). But in "les Italiens" they say
LI just as LI.
Really? Because they have no problem saying their own word,
"alliance".
[/quote]
How is that relevant? "Alliance" does not contain the palatal lateral you
need for "Tartaglia".
Regards,
Ekkehard |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Harlan Messinger... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ekkehard Dengler wrote:
[quote]Harlan Messinger wrote:
Marco Pagliero wrote:
On 16 Nov., 14:06, ranjit_mathews wrote:
For example, is a distinction observable between the pronunciations
of l and gl in these two proper names*, or is the difference
neutralized such that both the <li> and <gli> are pronounced the
same: 1) Italia
2) Tartaglia
...what I'm asking is whether speakers of
any Romance language, not just Italian, neutralize the difference.
In Italian it is normally a big difference, even if actually a few
people say Itaglia and a few say Tartalia. The former is generally
considered an error and the latter a speech defect, just like V for R
or F for S.
French people would say routinely Tartag-liá , separating G from L,
but if asked to pronounce it as a group, they seem unable to do so
and say instead anything between a double L and an Y (like their own
double L in Montpeiller => MonpeYé). But in "les Italiens" they say
LI just as LI.
Really? Because they have no problem saying their own word,
"alliance".
How is that relevant? "Alliance" does not contain the palatal lateral you
need for "Tartaglia".
[/quote]
It's relevant in that I'm questioning that French people would leave out
the lateral altogether because they have no trouble with a lateral in
that position.
By the way, could any of you please explain for us what IS the
difference between the way Italians say -aglia and the way they say
-alia? I don't think it's a matter of syllabification because AIUI -glia
and -lia are both one syllable. Is it palatalization of the /l/? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| António Marques... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 12:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Harlan Messinger wrote:
[quote]Ekkehard Dengler wrote:
Harlan Messinger wrote:
Marco Pagliero wrote:
On 16 Nov., 14:06, ranjit_mathews wrote:
For example, is a distinction observable between the pronunciations
of l and gl in these two proper names*, or is the difference
neutralized such that both the <li> and <gli> are pronounced the
same: 1) Italia
2) Tartaglia
...what I'm asking is whether speakers of
any Romance language, not just Italian, neutralize the difference.
In Italian it is normally a big difference, even if actually a few
people say Itaglia and a few say Tartalia. The former is generally
considered an error and the latter a speech defect, just like V for R
or F for S.
French people would say routinely Tartag-liá , separating G from L,
but if asked to pronounce it as a group, they seem unable to do so
and say instead anything between a double L and an Y (like their own
double L in Montpeiller => MonpeYé). But in "les Italiens" they say
LI just as LI.
Really? Because they have no problem saying their own word,
"alliance".
How is that relevant? "Alliance" does not contain the palatal lateral you
need for "Tartaglia".
It's relevant in that I'm questioning that French people would leave out
the lateral altogether because they have no trouble with a lateral in
that position.
By the way, could any of you please explain for us what IS the
difference between the way Italians say -aglia and the way they say
-alia? I don't think it's a matter of syllabification because AIUI -glia
and -lia are both one syllable. Is it palatalization of the /l/?
[/quote]
I find this whole thread very strange. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Marco Pagliero... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 12:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 17 Nov., 21:01, Harlan Messinger wrote:
[quote]You said they use a sound as in--you used the phonetic rendering
"MonpeYé". In other words, with no lateral at all. But since they have
words of their own like "alliance" where they have a lateral, there's no
reason why they would leave the lateral out in pronouncing an Italian
word, even if it isn't the same lateral as the Italian word.
Maybe I understand what you mean. No, I didn't experiment with[/quote]
Tartaglia but my own name contains a gli and when I was living in
France it was a routine joke that they generally cannot say it. I
don't know for what reason, but confronted with my sounding of "gli"
they try with "paYero", "pag-liero" or "pajero" (french J), but they
_never_ try with "paliero".
So you are right: if they did hear an L they probably would say it,
and as they don't, they probably don't hear any L.
[quote]You're muddying the conversation by confusing the spelling with the
sound. There is no G in the pronunciation at all, and the letter "g"
doesn't represent a sound that's separate from and in addition to the
sound represented by the "l": the two letters "gl" together represent a
single sound.
Sorry for the mud, and I consider it also to be a single sound, but[/quote]
the G in the spelling _is_ "meant to indicate" something: that the L
in the spelling is not an L as a sound. And maybe there is no trace of
the sound G in "gli", but I was just mumbling repeatedly "pag-lee-ah-
row" and interestingly I remarked that this sound G does modify the
sound of the following L in the right direction if I only speak as if
I had some water in my mouth.
Marco P |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Marco Pagliero... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 18 Nov., 00:29, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
[quote]Maybe not? Certainly not! <gl> before <i> or <e> in Italian represents
a palatal l, same as what's written <lh> in Portuguese and <ll> is
some types of Spanish. That's all there is to it.
Only before <i>, not before <e>.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Harlan Messinger... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 3:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Marco Pagliero wrote:
[quote]On 17 Nov., 17:42, Harlan Messinger wrote:
It's relevant in that I'm questioning that French people would leave out
the lateral altogether because they have no trouble with a lateral in
that position.
I don't understand what you mean. I said that french people say the
"li" in "italiens" the same way I say it, but they don't say the "gli"
in "tartaglia" the same way I say it.
[/quote]
You said they use a sound as in--you used the phonetic rendering
"MonpeYé". In other words, with no lateral at all. But since they have
words of their own like "alliance" where they have a lateral, there's no
reason why they would leave the lateral out in pronouncing an Italian
word, even if it isn't the same lateral as the Italian word.
If they have no trouble with
[quote]alliance they have trouble with tartaglia, and probably they are not
unable to say it, but they _hear_ only the L and not the G, or what
the G is meant to indicate.
[/quote]
You're muddying the conversation by confusing the spelling with the
sound. There is no G in the pronunciation at all, and the letter "g"
doesn't represent a sound that's separate from and in addition to the
sound represented by the "l": the two letters "gl" together represent a
single sound. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| António Marques... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 3:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 18 Nov, 00:13, Marco Pagliero <mart... at (no spam) web.de> wrote:
[quote]On 18 Nov., 00:29, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
Maybe not? Certainly not! <gl> before <i> or <e> in Italian represents
a palatal l, same as what's written <lh> in Portuguese and <ll> is
some types of Spanish. That's all there is to it.
Only before <i>, not before <e>.
[/quote]
This brings me to a question:
- the trigraph <gli> represents /L/
- but /Li/ is simply <gli>, not <glii>
- so *how* does one write /Li/ plus another vowel? does it even exist,
or there is only /L/ plus vowel, not /Li/ plus vowel? Is it written
the same? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Trond Engen... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Harlan Messinger:
[quote]Marco Pagliero wrote:
On 17 Nov., 17:42, Harlan Messinger wrote:
It's relevant in that I'm questioning that French people would
leave out the lateral altogether because they have no trouble with
a lateral in that position.
I don't understand what you mean. I said that french people say the
"li" in "italiens" the same way I say it, but they don't say the
"gli" in "tartaglia" the same way I say it.
You said they use a sound as in--you used the phonetic rendering
"MonpeYé". In other words, with no lateral at all. But since they
have words of their own like "alliance" where they have a lateral,
there's no reason why they would leave the lateral out in pronouncing
an Italian word, even if it isn't the same lateral as the Italian
word.
[/quote]
Why can't it be that to French speakers the palatal lateral (or lateral
with a palatal off-glide, or whatever) sounds more like a palatal
approximant (or on-glide, or something)? Since also Italian <-gl-> and
French <-(i)ll-> are cognates, one might suspect that variation within
French is playing a part in the phonemization.
[quote]If they have no trouble with alliance they have trouble with
tartaglia, and probably they are not unable to say it, but they
_hear_ only the L and not the G, or what the G is meant to indicate.
You're muddying the conversation by confusing the spelling with the
sound. There is no G in the pronunciation at all, and the letter "g"
doesn't represent a sound that's separate from and in addition to the
sound represented by the "l": the two letters "gl" together represent
a single sound.
[/quote]
Or at least a single phoneme. Still, the <g> represents _something_ that
sets it apart from its minimal partner.
--
Trond Engen |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Marco Pagliero... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 18 Nov., 02:56, António Marques wrote:
[quote]On 18 Nov, 00:13, Marco Pagliero wrote:
Only before <i>, not before <e>.
This brings me to a question:
- the trigraph <gli> represents /L/
- but /Li/ is simply <gli>, not <glii
- so *how* does one write /Li/ plus another vowel? does it even exist,
or there is only /L/ plus vowel, not /Li/ plus vowel? Is it written
the same?
Famiglia, maglieria, coniglio, pagliuzza. I don't know any example[/quote]
with a following i, I believe they have all been elided at the
beginning of the XIXth century.
(Except maybe in pagliuzza, one can, must not, avoid to pronounce the
i, so one could consider it just a diacritical in this case, like the
h in chi, che, ghi, ghe.)
Exceptions with separated "g-li": negligente, ganglio, geroglífico,
nevroglía, glifo, glicerina and a few more.
gle, gla, glo, glu are always pronounced as three sounds, not two.
So maybe this is not a tri- but a digraph with two pronounciations,
one before i and one before the rest. Or it is a trigraph with elision
of a following i. Dunno.
Greetings
Marco P |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ruud Harmsen... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:16:56 +0100: Trond Engen <trondnet at (no spam) engen.priv.no>:
in sci.lang:
[quote]Or at least a single phoneme. Still, the <g> represents _something_ that
sets it apart from its minimal partner.
[/quote]
There is no g, that's merely a spelling convention, nothing else.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.eu |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Wed Mar 10, 2010 8:13 am
|
|