So the are written ll nn hv but can be pronounced dl dn kv if it be the fancy of the speaker?
*sorry for corny english*
| NORN KJOKL http://nornlanguage.x10.mx/phpBB3/ |
|
| ll,nn > dl,dn vs. ll,nn > llj,nnj http://nornlanguage.x10.mx/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=264 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Hnolt [ Wed Aug 15, 2012 9:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | ll,nn > dl,dn vs. ll,nn > llj,nnj |
Let's discuss here everything that has to do with Old Norse ll,nn which gave dl,dn in the Westside area and Foula in Shetland and llj,nnj in the rest of Shetland and partially Orkney. Similar changes have occured in other Scandinavian languages. Icelandic, Faroese and several West Norwegian dialects have dl,dn (although rules for this might be different), whereas Trønder dialects and some east and North Norwegian have lj,nj (their distribution may vary as well). Later on I will post more detailed descriptions for each dialect area. But Scandinavian languages are far from being the only ones where such things happen. A few days ago I learned that in one Inuit (Eskimo) dialect ll normally is spelled as dl, but in one case it is spelled as dj which suggests palatalisation. Similar things occur in Aztec languages. Once again, concrete examples are underway. If you know any works on this topic feel free to post references to them in this thread. |
|
| Author: | Hrafn [ Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: ll,nn > dl,dn vs. ll,nn > llj,nnj |
Jep, in the middle ages danish went through a palatalization too, Bornholmsk has it fully preserved (other dialects too), while my dialect has i partly. Standart danish: kæreste Sønderjysk: kjærst' Bornholmsk: tjærste (= girlfriend / boyfriend) |
|
| Author: | Hnolt [ Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: ll,nn > dl,dn vs. ll,nn > llj,nnj |
Thanks but I created this topic in order to discuss the sonorant consonants l,n which become palatalised without an influence from front vowels, like æ in the example you mention. |
|
| Author: | Lundtrollinn [ Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: ll,nn > dl,dn vs. ll,nn > llj,nnj |
My question is: why <llj> and <nnj>, and not <lj> and <nj> ? |
|
| Author: | Hnolt [ Sun Nov 04, 2012 4:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: ll,nn > dl,dn vs. ll,nn > llj,nnj |
| Author: | Lundtrollinn [ Mon Nov 05, 2012 7:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: ll,nn > dl,dn vs. ll,nn > llj,nnj |
But is there a minimal pair involving llj/nnj and lj/nj ? If not, it is maybe a little bit redundant to write nnj as palatalization already implies a geminate. Maybe I am wrong... |
|
| Author: | Hnolt [ Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: ll,nn > dl,dn vs. ll,nn > llj,nnj |
No, you're right. There cannot be pure minimal pairs for these sounds, because they are, as linguists say, in 'complimentary distribution'. llj/nnj occur between vowels, while lj/nj can be found between a vowel and a consonant, like hand [hænjd], alt [æljt]. Sometimes sounds of the latter type are considered to be 'half long' (phonetically they can be that as well!). But as I've said before, the usage of such spellings in the 'common' Nynorn is now discouraged. |
|
| Author: | Eivind Rand Øyre [ Sat Sep 06, 2014 9:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: ll,nn > dl,dn vs. ll,nn > llj,nnj |
So the are written ll nn hv but can be pronounced dl dn kv if it be the fancy of the speaker? *sorry for corny english* |
|
| Author: | Hnolt [ Mon Sep 08, 2014 6:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: ll,nn > dl,dn vs. ll,nn > llj,nnj |
| Author: | Eivind Rand Øyre [ Mon Sep 08, 2014 9:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: ll,nn > dl,dn vs. ll,nn > llj,nnj |
I guess that was what I was trying to ask 
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|