Kebreni
- So Haleza Grise
- Avisaru
- Posts: 432
- Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 11:17 pm
Re: Kebreni
They're both the same as the English versions.Rory - NLI wrote:How does Kebreni <th> differ from <s>?
Re: Kebreni
That's not exceptionally helpful. Do you mean [th]ink or [th]at? I assume it's the first one though, considering its relationship with <s>.So Haleza Grise wrote:They're both the same as the English versions.Rory - NLI wrote:How does Kebreni <th> differ from <s>?
Qhost
[url=http://www.emalaith.com/census.html]ZBB Census 2006[/url]
Euskaldung
Whenever I try to pull my tongue back the sound goes apical on me.
Last edited by Delthayre on Tue Nov 11, 2003 5:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Great men are almost always bad men."
~Lord John Dalberg Acton
~Lord John Dalberg Acton
Russian /t/ and /d/ are dental, and my first-year Russian textbook (by Ben Clark) described Russian /s/ and /z/ as being, in effect, dental as well, with the tip of the tongue even touching the back of the lower teeth. (This description was accompanied by diagrams showing the tongue position involved.)zompist wrote:Cevlakohn is right; I was comparing Kebreni /th/ and /s/.
Hmm, French has dental /t/ too; what about /s/? Is it any different from English /s/?
OTOH, I am not sure that I have seen this confirmed elsewhere, and I myself most often use the English values of /s/ and /z/ when speaking Russian, and experienced no problems in doing so. (Some of the other Russian phonemes are another story. )
p@,
Glenn
That was my textbook, and I loathed it. I wish I could have had one of Nina Potapova?s books, or some other Soviet textbook. Soviet language textbooks were always better than their Western counterparts because they took the good old-fashioned attitude of ?You?re here to learn a language and learn it properly, not to be amused!? Their dictionaries, on the other hand, were terrible, stuck in an archaic mode of not providing much help with meanings.Glenn Kempf wrote: and my first-year Russian textbook (by Ben Clark)
My classmates and I got quite a kick out of it, actually; I suppose that we were young and immature enough to be amused by it, and I actually learned the basics of Russian grammar quite well from Clark. Second year was Davis & Oprendek, which was mainly an expanded repetition of the grammar covered the year before--useful in the long run, but less interesting.Shm Jay wrote:That was my textbook, and I loathed it.Glenn Kempf wrote: and my first-year Russian textbook (by Ben Clark)
I do see your point. I also agree about the Soviet dictionaries; my Soviet-era English-Kazakh dictionary is awful (my Kazakh-English dictionary, by Dunwoody Press, is much better--of course, both are quite rare specimens). Unfortunately, Western dictionaries often suffer from the same problem--I got very frustrated with the Langenscheit (sp?) Russian-English dictionary. These days, I use Katzner's and the Oxford dictionaries, as well as a few specialized works.Shm Jay wrote: I wish I could have had one of Nina Potapova’s books, or some other Soviet textbook. Soviet language textbooks were always better than their Western counterparts because they took the good old-fashioned attitude of “You’re here to learn a language and learn it properly, not to be amused!” Their dictionaries, on the other hand, were terrible, stuck in an archaic mode of not providing much help with meanings.
p@,
Glenn
Right, thanks.zompist wrote:Kebreni /t/ and /d/ are dental (rather than post-alveolar as in English); /th/ is simply the related (unvoiced) fricative. /s/ is pronounced with the tongue slightly farther back, and tensed to produce the sibilation.
I don't want to sound annoying here, but why is it not specified in the Kebreni page? Or is it, and I just missed it?
The man of science is perceiving and endowed with vision whereas he who is ignorant and neglectful of this development is blind. The investigating mind is attentive, alive; the mind callous and indifferent is deaf and dead. - 'Abdu'l-Bahá
- So Haleza Grise
- Avisaru
- Posts: 432
- Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 11:17 pm
Well, the transcription partially speaks for itself (being the same system as for example used in Cadhinor), and also in the original script, the same characters are used as for Cadhinor /s/ and /T/. To be honest, it never occured to me that anyone would have the problem you encountered.Rory wrote:Right, thanks.zompist wrote:Kebreni /t/ and /d/ are dental (rather than post-alveolar as in English); /th/ is simply the related (unvoiced) fricative. /s/ is pronounced with the tongue slightly farther back, and tensed to produce the sibilation.
I don't want to sound annoying here, but why is it not specified in the Kebreni page? Or is it, and I just missed it?