Fortis and lenis are generally phonological terms applied to a pair of sets of consonant whose articulation may differ in various ways falling under the heading of "strong articulation" versus "weak articulation", such as voicing, aspiration, length, and glottalization. In many of these the "fortis" articulation is observed to correlate with a greater accumulation of pressure in the mouth, especially before the release of a stop. What I'd like to know is this:
Are there any known languages in which the only difference between a pair of consonants is the amount of air pressure built up in their articulation, without any consistently observable difference in voice, aspiration, length, glottalization, or any of the other features commonly associated with a fortis-lenis contrast?
The closest thing I've ever heard of to this is Korean's "tense" consonants, which I've heard conflicting descriptions of that mainly agree on their having more forceful articulation than the "tenuis" (weakly aspirated word-initially and voiced word-internally) consonants. Some describe them as weakly glottalized, others as longer than the "tenuis" consonants (and never aspirated or allophonically voiced). I'm wondering if there's a better example, though.
"Pure"/"phonetic" fortis vs. lenis distinction?
- Chengjiang
- Avisaru
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 4:41 am
- Location: Davis, CA
"Pure"/"phonetic" fortis vs. lenis distinction?
[ʈʂʰɤŋtɕjɑŋ], or whatever you can comfortably pronounce that's close to that
Formerly known as Primordial Soup
Supporter of use of [ȶ ȡ ȵ ȴ] in transcription
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a 青.
Formerly known as Primordial Soup
Supporter of use of [ȶ ȡ ȵ ȴ] in transcription
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a 青.
Re: "Pure"/"phonetic" fortis vs. lenis distinction?
People have commented on how one can have strong and weak ejectives, but I, like they, have never heard of a language which actually contrasts them.
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.
Re: "Pure"/"phonetic" fortis vs. lenis distinction?
On the other hand, I've heard theories that the Korean "tense" consonants are basically just plain, voiceless stops. The "tenuis" set are historically voiced, and lost voice except between voiced segments; word-initial "tenuis" stops impart a falling tone on the syllable just like you'd expect a devoiced stop to. The "tense" set are then the original unaspirated series that happen to have a little extra laryngeal action, a la English's fortis set, Javanese's "voiceless" set, or... damn, I had another example too. One of the peripheral Tibetic languages maybe? A Yue dialect? I don't remember, I'll have to go internet-history-diving and see if I can refind it.Chengjiang wrote:The closest thing I've ever heard of to this is Korean's "tense" consonants, which I've heard conflicting descriptions of that mainly agree on their having more forceful articulation than the "tenuis" (weakly aspirated word-initially and voiced word-internally) consonants. Some describe them as weakly glottalized, others as longer than the "tenuis" consonants (and never aspirated or allophonically voiced). I'm wondering if there's a better example, though.
Re: "Pure"/"phonetic" fortis vs. lenis distinction?
That doesn't sound familiar. Are you talking about the "muddy" consonants? I'm thinking the opposite direction - rather than originally voiced consonants becoming slack/breathy, originally plain (voiceless unaspirated) consonants gaining elements of stiff or creaky voice. If it's not that and not a tone+phonation rather than consonental thing, I haven't heard about it before and a brief google search isn't bringing up anything.Vijay wrote:Wu?
Re: "Pure"/"phonetic" fortis vs. lenis distinction?
Yeah, sorry.vokzhen wrote:That doesn't sound familiar. Are you talking about the "muddy" consonants?Vijay wrote:Wu?