Talk:Irish phonology/Archive 1

older entries

An interesting start -- but I fear if the goal is to explain how Irish spelling relates to Irish pronunciation, the author will need Job's patience and Solomon's wisdom.  :-) An interesting beginning, at any rate. Smerdis of Tlön 16:26, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Starting to add content

I don't know about the patience of Job and the wisdom of Solomon; I'll make do with a Ph.D. in theoretical linguistics!

I've started moving my Irish linguistics page from http://www.ling.uni-potsdam.de/~green/gaeilge/gaeilge.htm (where I can no longer update it) to Wikipedia. So don't worry about copyright infringements; this is *my own stuff* I'm copying from there and pasting in here! --Angr 08:22, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Questions about details of palatalization

Thus spake the text:

/ʃ/ is not strictly a palatoalveolar but rather an alveopalatal fricative [ɕ] like Polish si or Mandarin x.

Erm... which is it? Is it [ʃʲ] as in Polish, or [ɕ] as in Mandarin? The latter sounds like [x] and [ʃʲ] (and/or [sʲ], depending on perhaps the dialect) pronounced at the same time. I mean... erm... say [x], let the tip of the tongue where it is, slowly push the back half of the tongue forwards, et voilà, [ɕ] but not [ʃʲ].

Slender /xʲ/ is a voiceless (post)palatal fricative [ç] like the German ich-Laut. The symbol xʲ is used to emphasize its relationship with the stop /kʲ/ in the system of initial mutations.

Really? I'm just asking because genuine [xʲ] (or perhaps I should write [çʲ]) exists. Russian has it, for example ("chemistry": химия [xʲi(:)mʲija]). The German [x]-[ç] continuum phoneme can become very similar to [xʲ] (most extreme example: Milch), but it never really becomes palatalized. I'm a native speaker of German, and I've had 4 years of Russian in school, so trust me on this :o)

David Marjanović david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at 19:00 CET-summertime 2005/8/21

I speak Russian natively (though it's been in disuse for a long time), I know German pronunciation very well, I'm a native Swede, I'm currently studying Mandarin and I've studied some Japanese. All these languages have one of the three relevant fricatives (Swedish, Mandarin and Japanese share [ɕ]), and there is definetly a clear difference between [ɕ], [ç] and [xʲ] (I think the latter is still basically velar). I know phonemic transcription doesn't have to be phonetically accurate, but here it seems a bit too confusing for comfort.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

/ɕ/ and /ç ~ xʲ/ are distinct in Irish; the first is the palatalized equivalent of /s/ and is usually rendered /ʃ/ even though that symbol is not strictly accurate (according to the phonetic descriptions of monoglot or near-monoglot speakers born over a hundred years ago; I doubt whether modern bilingual Irish speakers distinguish between the Irish sound and the English sh sound). The second is the palatalized equivalent of /x/. The symbol ç is more accurate phonetically, but the symbol xʲ more convenient phonologically; this page is concerned with Irish phonology (about which a fair amount has been published), not with Irish phonetics (about which lamentably little has been published). I doubt whether any language can have a phonemic contrast between xʲ and ç. Is there really a difference in articulation between Russian xʲ in химия and German ç in Milch? How can a palatal sound be (phonetically) palatalized anyway? If the primary articulation is palatal, how can there be a secondary articulation in the exact same place? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 23:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't swear that the Russian sound couldn't be realized as [ç] in rapid speech, but I hear the difference and I can make a sound file if you like. I agree that [çʲ] makes absolutely no sense, though. It's either [xʲ] or [ç].

Peter ^Isotalo 13:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

OK… so I told you a bit of nonsense two years ago. <[ʃʲ]> would be a way to write [ɕ], but nobody does that, presumably because the extra symbol exists and because the sound exists in plenty of languages that otherwise lack phonetically palatalized consonants. The Standard (!) Mandarin sound I was talking about is the dorso-palatal sibilant (which lacks an IPA symbol – yes, really, dorso-palatal, bend the tongue into a ⋂ shape so that the blade touches the alveolar ridge of the lower jaw); speakers of southern Mandarin ( = those who don't retroflex) do say [ɕ] instead, which is probably why almost all descriptions of Mandarin pronunciation use that symbol. That's what fooled me; I knew the sound, and the symbol, but the connection between them was wrong.

Yes, there is a (small) difference between German [ç] and Russian [xʲ], even though the former is actually a (small) range of sounds (in Dächer, ich, Mönch, Milch I hear myself using four different places of articulation, from back to front in this order), but the whole range is palatal or "prepalatal" or something, none of them is a palatalized velar, or perhaps velarized alveolopalatal if you prefer – there are two articulations, I can't really tell which is primary and which secondary). As a native German speaker and learner of Russian, I consistently hear the difference. Still, I don't expect any language to use [ç] and [xʲ] as separate phonemes, and I didn't say any did.

Of course the transcription [çʲ] is nonsense, however; palatalizing a palatal is right next to impossible. David Marjanović 18:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Next question: The article says the slender stops can be [c ɟ ɲ] or [k̟ g˖ ŋ˖] depending on the dialect. Does the more or less intermediate realization, [kʲ gʲ ŋʲ], occur anywhere? Do the true palatals occur at all? I'm asking because Wikipedia (and not only Wikipedia) is full of uses of the symbols for the palatal stops for fronted velars, palatalized velars, postalveolar fricatives, alveolopalatal affricates, and maybe palatalized alveolar plosives, and similar confusion reigns for the symbols for the nasal and the lateral. Audio files of palatal plosives and nasals are here. David Marjanović 18:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Alveolar approximants

Is the Irish "r" equivalent to the English "r"? The table says that it is an approximant, as opposed to a trill or a flap. If that is so, shouldn't the symbol be ɹ? Waynem 21:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it's a flap. I've fixed the table. --Angr (tɔk) 21:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

In my experience, the "r" is quite variable, even among native speakers. Perhaps at least some of this is due to contamination from English? (Older speakers and those in "fior-Ghaeltachts" seem more likely to use a flap.) 38.117.238.82 05:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

aː vs. ɑː, ɒː, or ɔː

It seems that some words that should, according to the article have an aː are pronounced in English with an ɑː, ɒː, or ɔː (e.g. Gardaí, Tánaiste). The words otherwise sound Irish (dental t and d, etc.) Are these variations in Irish pronunciation or is this an English thing? (Watch RTÉ News for examples: [1]).

(This was also posted at Talk:Irish orthography)

-  AjaxSmack  01:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit of both. [ɑː] and [ɒː] are allophones of /aː/ in Irish (partially determined by position, partially by dialect), and English /ɑː/ as in "father" is often [aː] in Hiberno-English anyway, so none of these sounds really contrast with each other in either language. Angr 04:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Shouldn't that be in the article? aː and ɑː aren't allophones in all varieties of English (e.g., South Midlands USA "line" [laːn] / "Lahn" [lɑːn] / "lawn" [lɔːn].) -  AjaxSmack  07:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

By "either language" I meant either Irish or Hiberno-English. I suppose the allophones of /aː/ in Irish should be mentioned in the article. Angr 07:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I understood you meant only Hiberno-English but not all Wikipedia readers know H-I. I would add the allophones myself but don't have knowledge or sources to do so. -  AjaxSmack  19:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice article! HeBhagawan 16:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination PASS

Not only does this pass, I feel like I just took a bath. Don't ask. PASS--Ling.Nut 05:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you. First time anyone's said my writing had a cleansing effect on him, though. —Angr 06:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's really an excellent article now. The only thing I really miss at this point is a longer summary at the top. Three or four paragraphs would be reasonable for an article of this length. Haukur 17:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

{{Sofixit}}... why do I have to do all the work? ;-) —Angr 07:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, there - you did :) In my opinion this article is now FA quality. Haukur 21:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'd better nominate it then. We'll see what others think. —Angr 23:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Open vowels

The text says there is a long and a short open vowel in Irish, /a/, /aː/. The image for Connacht implies that the short one is realised to the front whereas the long one to the back. However, the Munster image says that there are two open vowels, one front and one back which can both appear long or short. What is the interpretation of that? Stefán 17:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In Connacht, the short one is realized as a front vowel and the long one is realized as a back vowel. In Munster, both the long and the short ones have both front and back allophones. I've replaced the Munster image to try to make that clearer. —Angr 18:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it is much clearer now and the colourful vowel images are brilliant. Stefán 17:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A couple of comments

I suppose this could also go on the FAC page but I might as well put it here.

1. Although it makes a lot of sense to me from a scholarly point of view to have the history section at the beginning, I am wondering whether it would be better encyclopediaic style to have it at the end.
2. May I suggest that the first sentence in the paragraph about broad/slender in the lead be reworded from "One of the most important aspects of Irish phonology is the distinction between so-called "broad" and "slender" consonants." to "One of the most important aspects of Irish phonology is that most consonants come in two variants, one which is called "broad" and the other "slender"." This may not be the best wording but I am trying to emphasise that there are "two f's" etc, not that "f's" are broad whereas "k's" are slender, say. Of course the minimal pair later in the paragraph makes that reasonably clear.
3. The example speal /sˠpʲal/ "scythe" in the first paragraph in "Word-initial consonant clusters" surprised me as it breaks broad/broad agreement. I see now that it is explained in the next paragraph but perhaps a non-surprising example could be taken in the first paragraph.
4. There are several footnotes explaining words that are pronounced differently than expected from looking at the spelling. This suggests that there is in most cases a way of determining how a word is pronounced from looking at the spelling. I even believe we have an article on the subject :D, perhaps there should be a link to it before the examples start, except I'm not sure where to put the link. Stefán 17:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

To take your points one by one:

1. I think it's better to have the history section first, because it's one of the sections that a layman can read and understand and might be interested in. Better to put it at the top, where the layman is still reading, than at the bottom after he's already given up and gone on to read about his favorite manga instead.
2. I see your point; I'll try to reword it.
3. Good point; I'll use a different example.
4. Yes, we do have an article Irish orthography, and guess who wrote most of it? I mostly put those footnotes in for the benefit of people learning Irish who are trying valiantly to figure out how to pronounce a word when they see it spelled, because they would be particularly disheartened by some of these examples where the standard spelling isn't even trying to reflect the pronunciation of the dialect in question. How about I add the link to the first of these footnotes? —Angr 17:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Re 1, yes, I hadn't considered that argument.

Re 4, The smiley was supposed to signify that I was aware of what you mention in the first example. I think it is a good solution to add it to the first footnote. Thanks Stefán 17:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Re 1: By that token it's a bit of a shame that the easily read Comparison with other languages comes at the end, long after our hypothetical layman has given up. Haukur 17:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

True, but it makes reference to things that have been discussed in the course of the article. They'd be meaningless if they were mentioned before they had been discussed. Consider it a little reward for the layman who does slog all the way through the article. —Angr 18:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

5 In the table about the potential nasalised vowels, why should I expect that "áth" (ford) could be nasalised? Stefán 17:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't. I sure didn't when I found that in the book it's cited from. It's just one of those things. —Angr 18:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

grafanna dáthúla

Silim go bhfuil do ghrafanna dáthúla go deas!

Maith thú!

159.134.221.58 23:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC) James

Go raibh maith agat! —Angr 11:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

external link sounds

Chuir mé nasc nua le fuimeanna eile ón teangeolaí Lughaidh Ó hÉachartaigh/ Loig Cheveau.

They're better in quality to the others, so the might suit staying if you feel so too 159.134.220.189 20:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC) James

They look okay to me. —Angr 05:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

My Irish name is Lughaidh Ó hEacháin, not Ó hÉachartaigh ! Thanks for adding the page I did in the links. By the way, where do these [bˠ], [fˠ] etc come from? As far as I know, there's no velarised bilabial consonant in Irish (it would sound very odd), only [bʷ], [ɸʷ], [mʷ]. There are many things I find very strange in this article. Lughaidh 01:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)