zompist bboard

FROM PROTO-EASTERN PHILOLOGY: aw /aw/, ay /aj/, ey /ej/, and oy /oj/ are the only true diphthongs. Where w and y occur with other vowels they are consonantal

but in (say) /aj/, it's already a consonant /j/. Something with sense would be that, for example, ew it's /e u/

A true diphthong means that the consonant portion is part of the vowel-measure, and cannot be seperate. Whenever you see [aj], it is [aj], never [a.j]. Hope that clarifies.

/j/ and /w/ are semivocalic sounds, not consonantal.

but then, what would be a consonantal /j/?

Ancenande wrote:but then, what would be a consonantal /j/?

/w/ and /y/ are called semivowels because sometimes they act like vowels, and sometimes like consonants; it varies with the language, and sometimes, with their environments.

so?

Ancenande wrote:so?

Well, as Mr. Burke explained, /j/ (or /y/ in some transcription systems) can behave like a vowel or a consonant, it and /w/ are sort of in between the two categories.

I suppose in words like <yet> /jEt/ one could contrue it as a consonant, but the examples you listed from Verdurian have /j/ in its more vowel-like role as a part of a diphthong. Most dialects of English have this as well, but the distinction is not phonemic. For example, English <cane> is phonetically (for me, at least) [kej~n] with [j] functioning as a part of the syllable nucleüs with /e/.

But to be honest, "so?" doesn't really suggest much as to what your question is or how you were dissatisfied with Mr. Burke's explanation.

so a "vocalic" /j/ would be more like /i/ and a "consonantal" one would be more like /j\/?

Ancenande wrote:so a "vocalic" /j/ would be more like /i/ and a "consonantal" one would be more like /j\/?

Sort of. [j] is a consonant, but, being an approximant/semivowel/glide (whichever term you use), it is extremely close to the line dividing vowels and consonants. [j] is a consonant, and for years there actually wasn't a seperate symbol for [j\], it being thought that there wasn't any major difference between them. It now seems that there is, but it still isn't very common.

The main point is that diphthongs can tend to develop differently than the sounds that compose them; while the other sequences (such as [eu]) can develop of their own accord, what Mark is saying is that the diphthongs have reflexes that are distinct from those of their seperate parts (with, say, *ay > e, *ai > ai as an example).

This is the main problem, I think: sounds don't necessarily change and/or work the same in different languages. Certain sounds tend to have similar changes, but there really aren't any hard and fast rules. /j/ can act both as the second member of a diphthong (thus making it more vocalic) and as a simple consonant [j] (thus being more consonantal), and they're still the same sound.

Phonology's weird like that.