Help with labialization, palatalization, and aspiration

[finlay]

I am saying both correctly, and I don't hear a distinction between the two. Here I'll even record it for you

[kʷa] [kwa] http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29498835/kwakwa.wav

This is probably a fake distinction, but have it anyway: what I reckon is that the difference between [ʷ] and [w] is that [w] is a labial-velar coarticulation, but [ʷ] is a secondary labial articulation. Therefore a [kʷ]~[kw] difference would take this into account. Now, granted, [k] is already a velar articulation, but [ʷ] should be secondary and there should be no velar approximant. And then there's the timing thing that you already highlighted.

Here's me saying my take on it; but note that a) this is completely unrealistic and not really how it'd be done in actual languages, none of which distinguish the two as we've said, b) I have exaggerated these differences somewhat, including possibly saying [kua] instead of [kwa], but these are phonetically almost indistinguishable and based on timing and can be language-specific, and c) I may have used compressed rounding to make the [kʷ] sound even more different. Sorry.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15543016/quacua.wav

It's also worth noting that you will almost never get [kwa] in a real physical sense, and it'll almost always be [kʷwa], but this is an articulatory problem related to the fact that features like labialisation aren't discrete and simple as the IPA would lead you to believe. It's the kind of phonetic detail that almost nobody puts in an IPA transcription.

[Soap]

Are you saying there are no natlangs that contrast /kw/ versus /kʷ/? Im pretty sure there are some. Off the top of my head, Latin is believed to have, which is why there is a {qu} when otherwise {cu} would have done. And also PIE if we are correct to assume that k is really /k/ and not /c/ or something.

[Ser]

Are you saying there are no natlangs that contrast /kw/ versus /kʷ/? Im pretty sure there are some. Off the top of my head, Latin is believed to have, which is why there is a {qu} when otherwise {cu} would have done.

I think it's believed that ‹CUV› was /ku.V/ [ku.V] and not /kwV/ [kʷV] e.g. ‹CUI› [ku.i] (in contrast with ‹QUIBUS› [kwi.bus] or [kʷi.bus] (maybe [kʷwi.bus]?)).

[tezcatlip0ca]

Try saying [uku] without the , [iki] without the , etc. That's how I learned them, at least.

[Drydic]

Are you saying there are no natlangs that contrast /kw/ versus /kʷ/? Im pretty sure there are some. Off the top of my head, Latin is believed to have, which is why there is a {qu} when otherwise {cu} would have done. And also PIE if we are correct to assume that k is really /k/ and not /c/ or something.

You know I was going to post that about Latin earlier today before this was posted, how QUI was [kʷi] and CUI was [kui].

Knew I should've.

[Nortaneous]

re: Latin

1. Does /w/ exist?
1a. If so, why not analyze <qu> as /kw/?
2. Are syllable breaks phonemic? (that is, does /ai/ contrast with /a.i/ or /a.e/ or whatever)
3. Does /j/ exist?
3a. If so, why not analyze <cui> as /cuj/?

[Drydic]

Note: this is entirely in relation to Classical Latin. Vulgar is a whole different ballgame.

1. Does /w/ exist?

Yes. VOLUĪ 'I wished' versus VOLVĪ 'I wound/rolled (up)'.

1a. If so, why not analyze <qu> as /kw/?

Because QU is never broken up in poetry; always E-QUUS and not *EQ-UUS, versus LĀC-VE 'or milk' (which would have the same /kw/ cluster as you posit), which does not occur as LĀ-CVE. Unless you're arguing that this certain /kw/ behaves specially unlike other clusters (including other /kw/ clusters), in which case I ask you shouldn't it then be analyzed as a unitary phoneme /kʷ/?

2. Are syllable breaks phonemic? (that is, does /ai/ contrast with /a.i/ or /a.e/ or whatever)

To my knowledge, no. edit: Turns out there are some instances of /a.e:/ and one of /o.e:/, but they're all greek loanwords.

3. Does /j/ exist?

It technically does (in that both IAM and TAM are CVC), but [j] and [ i] do not contrast.

3a. If so, why not analyze <cui> as /cuj/?

Because it's not CUI, it's CUĪ. /j/ is not written as Ī, only I or II. And before you trot out that macrons weren't used in Classical Latin, usually no they were not but we do have writers who did indicate the length on long vowels.

[zuben]

What I've always wondered is if it's only dependent on the language's phoneme inventory whether you analyse a particular sound as a labiovelar or a cluster of stop + /w/, why is PIE always thought of as having labiovelars when it had an independent /w/ phoneme?

Another thing I've always wondered is what is the difference between a sequence of semivowel+vowel and a rising diphthong? eg /ja/ vs /ia/ (as one syllable). For a long time I thought none at all, but then I read something (I think) about Romanian which said the two contrast in that language. If that's true how do they contrast?

[finlay]

Timing, again.

Here's a recording of me doing it:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15543016/jaia.wav

and here's a spectrogram of the recording:

You can see the difference in the two in that is slightly longer that [j]. I've also apparently begun a lot more abruptly (possibly with a glottal stop). You should be able to see the same transition, the same vague lines drawn by the darker areas or formants, in [ja] and [ia], however.

(The blue line signifies pitch, but I'm not sure that the fact that it's broken on the right suggests anything – that's probably just Praat not analysing it properly.)

[Davoush]

You're either forgetting or do not know that the IPA in fact does have symbols for epiglottals: [ʡ] and [ʢ], plosive and voiced fricative, respectively. These were in fact introduced, afaik, just for the Arabic sounds.

Isn't this backwards? I've always heard that the vast majority of languages with "pharyngeal" consonants have epiglottal consonants, and that Arabic was one of the few ones where the standard is actually a pharyngeal articulation.

The standard does seem to be pharyngeal, especially in Egypt and the Levant. The Gulf and southern Iraqi dialects (and Moroccan I believe) do tend to use the epiglottal pronunciation more though.

[zuben]

Timing, again.

Here's a recording of me doing it:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15543016/jaia.wav

and here's a spectrogram of the recording:

You can see the difference in the two in that is slightly longer that [j]. I've also apparently begun a lot more abruptly (possibly with a glottal stop). You should be able to see the same transition, the same vague lines drawn by the darker areas or formants, in [ja] and [ia], however.

(The blue line signifies pitch, but I'm not sure that the fact that it's broken on the right suggests anything – that's probably just Praat not analysing it properly.)

OK, I can hear a difference in the recording, but to me your /ja/ sounds monosyllabic whereas the /ia/ sounds disyllabic. Or is that just because you started the /i/ so abruptly?

[finlay]

It probably is disyllabic, yes. But then I kinda think the syllabicity question is more to do with phonology than phonetics.

It's also possible that the people talking about Romanian were trying to make the distinction between the falling and rising diphthong, ie the difference between [i̯a] and [ia̯].

[Drydic]

I've always liked the idea of a language which has an approximant glide based on /a/, e.g. /ɣ˕/ or /ɰ/. I kinda doubt one exists tho.