The CBB

Discuss constructed languages, cultures, worlds, related sciences and much more!
It is currently Fri 26 May 2017, 06:33

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: [j] vs [i̯]
PostPosted: Fri 19 May 2017, 21:59 
sinic
sinic
User avatar

Joined: Wed 17 May 2017, 17:10
Posts: 357
Location: The Universe
In Old English, there is a word, haliġ (holy) pronounced: /halij/; but to my understanding, /j/ = [i̯], and /ii̯/ is just [iː]
What's the difference?

_________________
The SpielSprache
You selected this text just to feel better, didn't you?
My ScratchPad


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: [j] vs [i̯]
PostPosted: Fri 19 May 2017, 22:35 
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2010, 00:53
Posts: 2283
Location: North Yorkshire, UK
GamerGeek wrote:
In Old English, there is a word, haliġ (holy) pronounced: /halij/; but to my understanding, /j/ = [i̯], and /ii̯/ is just [iː]
What's the difference?


From what I can remember, the primary difference between [j] and [i ] is down to an relatively narrower gap between the blade of the tongue and the palate in the production of [j], almost to the point of causing a turbulent airstream to form that is wholly absent from [i ]. At least for me it's easier to notice the different when producing sequences like [ji] where you can feel the blade of the tongue pull away from the palate slightly as you transition from [j] to [i ].

As for [j] vs. [i̯], I seem to recall that this is a) partly a matter of transcription and b) partly a matter of the phonology of specific languages.

For example, in some languages vowels (and by extension diphthongs) in closed syllables are short while those in open syllables are long. We might then, for example, find an example like /kai/ [ka:i̯] vs. /kaj/ [kaj]. There might no be anything phonetically distinct between [i̯] and [j] in these words, but for the sake of consistent representation of the processes resulting in the different surface forms two different representations appear (you kind of see the same thing in transcriptions of Danish with [d̥] being phonetically equivalent to [t], but writers have chosen to use the former over the later to show the relationship to the other allophones of /d/, namely [ð̞ˠ̠]).

_________________
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: [j] vs [i̯]
PostPosted: Fri 19 May 2017, 22:45 
mayan
mayan
User avatar

Joined: Sun 11 Jan 2015, 23:22
Posts: 2168
Location: Ohio, USA
In many cases, [j] is phonetically equivalent to a very short, non-syllabic [i]. However, like sangi said, there is sometimes a narrower gap between the tongue and the palate in the articulation of [j], especially in [ji] or [ij], where [j] is adjacent to [i]. The same can be said about [u] and [w], [y] and [ɥ], and [ɯ] and [ɰ].

_________________
:eng: - Native
:chn: - B2
:esp: - A2
:jpn: - A1


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: [j] vs [i̯]
PostPosted: Fri 19 May 2017, 23:03 
runic
runic

Joined: Thu 20 Nov 2014, 02:27
Posts: 3580
Relevant :yout: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6EoRBvdVPQ

_________________
Spoiler: show
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland

What is made of man will crumble away.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: [j] vs [i̯]
PostPosted: Fri 19 May 2017, 23:04 
sinic
sinic
User avatar

Joined: Wed 17 May 2017, 17:10
Posts: 357
Location: The Universe
qwed117 wrote:

What was that?

_________________
The SpielSprache
You selected this text just to feel better, didn't you?
My ScratchPad


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: [j] vs [i̯]
PostPosted: Fri 19 May 2017, 23:05 
runic
runic
User avatar

Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32
Posts: 3452
GrandPiano wrote:
In many cases, [j] is phonetically equivalent to a very short, non-syllabic [i]. However, like sangi said, there is sometimes a narrower gap between the tongue and the palate in the articulation of [j] [...]

So true. Also, just to make it clear. This can be language specific.

_________________
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :fra: 4 :esp: 4 :ind:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: [j] vs [i̯]
PostPosted: Sat 20 May 2017, 18:58 
sinic
sinic
User avatar

Joined: Wed 17 May 2017, 17:10
Posts: 357
Location: The Universe
Do any languages contrast [j] and [i̯] phonemically?

_________________
The SpielSprache
You selected this text just to feel better, didn't you?
My ScratchPad


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: [j] vs [i̯]
PostPosted: Sat 20 May 2017, 19:14 
greek
greek

Joined: Tue 18 Jun 2013, 22:01
Posts: 642
I would guess it exists somewhere. Spanish has something that comes close, /ʝ/ vs. /i̯/. There is some neutralization and interchange between the sounds; for example, the singular "rey" has /i̯/ while the plural "reyes" has /ʝ/. They are only constrastive in most varieties after other consonants, if I remember correctly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: [j] vs [i̯]
PostPosted: Sun 21 May 2017, 11:55 
greek
greek
User avatar

Joined: Tue 01 Jul 2014, 04:29
Posts: 457
Location: gøtalandum
Sumelic wrote:
I would guess it exists somewhere. Spanish has something that comes close, /ʝ/ vs. /i̯/. There is some neutralization and interchange between the sounds; for example, the singular "rey" has /i̯/ while the plural "reyes" has /ʝ/. They are only constrastive in most varieties after other consonants, if I remember correctly.


Swedish, at least the standard pronunciation has free variation between /ʝ/ and /j/ mostly depending on the closeness of the following vowel and how stressed the word is. You can have both realizations in the same sentence without it being marked in any way. /v/ behaves in the same way.

But then again you can analyze Swedish as lacking voiced fricatives altogether, only being alophones of approximants in energetic pronunciation or intervocalic realizations of voiced stops. Some Germanic languages/dialects are generally analyzed this way, like Swiss German or danish.

_________________
[:D] :se-og: :fi-al2: :swe:
[:)] :nor: :usa: :uk:
:wat: :dan: :se-sk2: :eng:
[B)] Image Image :deu:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: [j] vs [i̯]
PostPosted: Mon 22 May 2017, 12:31 
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat 15 May 2010, 23:25
Posts: 1322
GamerGeek wrote:
In Old English, there is a word, haliġ (holy) pronounced: /halij/; but to my understanding, /j/ = [i̯], and /ii̯/ is just [iː]
What's the difference?

In Old English specifically, short /i/ was almost certainly phonetically somewhat centralized (perhaps especially in unstressed positions), so /ij/ would have been pronounced [ɪj]. Which, as others have pointed out, may or may not be the same thing as [ɪi̯].

Or, to quote myself from an old post:

Quote:
[j w] are [...] either equivalent to the close vowels [i̯ u̯], or even closer (the definition of semivowel is apparently somewhat vague in this respect, so the symbols [j w] can represent slightly different sounds in different languages).





sangi39 wrote:
As for [j] vs. [i̯], I seem to recall that this is a) partly a matter of transcription and b) partly a matter of the phonology of specific languages.

Right. Since I already looked up that old post of mine, I'll repost the example I used then:

Quote:
For semivowels such as [j w] / [i̯ u̯] - i.e. sounds that most people would agree can be classified as either vowels or consonants - it depends on how they seem to behave in the phonological and/or morphophonological system of the language.

For example, in Hungarian, words like tej [tɛ̞i̯] 'milk' behave as if their stems ended in a consonant; a connecting vowel is inserted before certain endings (as in the accusative form tejet), which is never done for stems ending in a vowel. By contrast, in Finnish, words like täi [tæi̯] 'louse' behave like vowel-stems; the genitive/accusative of this one, for instance, is täin instead of *täjen or whatever (Finnish traditionally doesn't even permit word-final consonant clusters at all). Hence, even though the two words here are phonetically almost identical, it makes sense to analyze the Hungarian one phonemically as ending in a consonant (/tɛj/), and the Finnish one as ending in a vowel (/tæi/).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: [j] vs [i̯]
PostPosted: Mon 22 May 2017, 23:30 
greek
greek

Joined: Fri 03 Jul 2015, 14:36
Posts: 601
Location: Switzerland, usually
Code:
But then again you can analyze Swedish as lacking voiced fricatives altogether, only being alophones of approximants in energetic pronunciation or intervocalic realizations of voiced stops. Some Germanic languages/dialects are generally analyzed this way, like Swiss German or danish.


Most analyses of Swiss German I see (including my own) disregard voicing as distinctive in the first place. /z ʒ/ are most certainly not a thing (not even allophonically like in Standard German), /ʋ~v/ is pretty much the only debatable phoneme when it comes to a voicing distinction. I claim it’s more approximanty, and all approximants are voiced in neutral position (I think they may devoice sometimes, e.g. in clusters with plosives).

_________________
At kveldi skal dag lęyfa,
Konu es bręnnd es,
Mæki es ręyndr es,
Męy es gefin es,
Ís es yfir kømr,
Ǫl es drukkit es.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: [j] vs [i̯]
PostPosted: Mon 22 May 2017, 23:36 
sinic
sinic
User avatar

Joined: Wed 17 May 2017, 17:10
Posts: 357
Location: The Universe
Adarain wrote:
Code:
But then again you can analyze Swedish as lacking voiced fricatives altogether, only being alophones of approximants in energetic pronunciation or intervocalic realizations of voiced stops. Some Germanic languages/dialects are generally analyzed this way, like Swiss German or danish.

That should be a quote.

_________________
The SpielSprache
You selected this text just to feel better, didn't you?
My ScratchPad


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: [j] vs [i̯]
PostPosted: Tue 23 May 2017, 05:02 
mayan
mayan
User avatar

Joined: Sun 11 Jan 2015, 23:22
Posts: 2168
Location: Ohio, USA
Xonen wrote:
In Old English specifically, short /i/ was almost certainly phonetically somewhat centralized (perhaps especially in unstressed positions), so /ij/ would have been pronounced [ɪj].

Just out of curiosity, what is the evidence for this?

_________________
:eng: - Native
:chn: - B2
:esp: - A2
:jpn: - A1


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: [j] vs [i̯]
PostPosted: Tue 23 May 2017, 05:32 
sinic
sinic
User avatar

Joined: Wed 17 May 2017, 17:10
Posts: 357
Location: The Universe
GrandPiano wrote:
Xonen wrote:
In Old English specifically, short /i/ was almost certainly phonetically somewhat centralized (perhaps especially in unstressed positions), so /ij/ would have been pronounced [ɪj].

Just out of curiosity, what is the evidence for this?

There really isn't any.

_________________
The SpielSprache
You selected this text just to feel better, didn't you?
My ScratchPad


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: [j] vs [i̯]
PostPosted: Tue 23 May 2017, 12:32 
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat 15 May 2010, 23:25
Posts: 1322
GrandPiano wrote:
Xonen wrote:
In Old English specifically, short /i/ was almost certainly phonetically somewhat centralized (perhaps especially in unstressed positions), so /ij/ would have been pronounced [ɪj].

Just out of curiosity, what is the evidence for this?

Well, for starters, the fact that short (close) vowels are phonetically lax in most modern Germanic languages and most modern dialects of English. It's possible, of course, that this is simply a coincidence, but Occam's razor suggests that this was already the case in Proto-Germanic. Also, Vulgar Latin [e] seems to have been substituted with short /i/ in some loanwords, but since I just heard this at a conference last week, it might not be quite the scientific consensus yet.

For the unstressed bit, I'll admit I'm guessing, but there seems to be a common tendency for that to happen even in languages where there is otherwise fairly little allophonic variation, such as Finnish and Italian:

Spoiler: show
Image

Spoiler: show
Italian:
Image
source


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: [j] vs [i̯]
PostPosted: Thu 25 May 2017, 02:18 
mayan
mayan
User avatar

Joined: Sun 11 Jan 2015, 23:22
Posts: 2168
Location: Ohio, USA
GamerGeek wrote:
GrandPiano wrote:
Xonen wrote:
In Old English specifically, short /i/ was almost certainly phonetically somewhat centralized (perhaps especially in unstressed positions), so /ij/ would have been pronounced [ɪj].

Just out of curiosity, what is the evidence for this?

There really isn't any.

Now I'm curious what the basis is for this assertion, especially considering Xonen just gave a decent amount of evidence for his claim.

_________________
:eng: - Native
:chn: - B2
:esp: - A2
:jpn: - A1


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: [j] vs [i̯]
PostPosted: Thu 25 May 2017, 17:07 
roman
roman

Joined: Wed 11 Feb 2015, 11:23
Posts: 1325
Adarain wrote:
Code:
But then again you can analyze Swedish as lacking voiced fricatives altogether, only being alophones of approximants in energetic pronunciation or intervocalic realizations of voiced stops. Some Germanic languages/dialects are generally analyzed this way, like Swiss German or danish.


Most analyses of Swiss German I see (including my own) disregard voicing as distinctive in the first place. /z ʒ/ are most certainly not a thing (not even allophonically like in Standard German), /ʋ~v/ is pretty much the only debatable phoneme when it comes to a voicing distinction. I claim it’s more approximanty, and all approximants are voiced in neutral position (I think they may devoice sometimes, e.g. in clusters with plosives).

I think one indicator of /ʋ~v/ being an approximant in German is the way Germans tend to mispronounce /w/ in English, lumping it together with /v/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: [j] vs [i̯]
PostPosted: Thu 25 May 2017, 20:44 
greek
greek
User avatar

Joined: Tue 01 Jul 2014, 04:29
Posts: 457
Location: gøtalandum
gestaltist wrote:
I think one indicator of /ʋ~v/ being an approximant in German is the way Germans tend to mispronounce /w/ in English, lumping it together with /v/


When I think about it, my own /v/ is not even articulated in the same way as my /f/. The lips are more open and there is far less turbulence. And native english speakers have noted that I easily mispronounce very even when I am sure that it is not a w.

Swedish, or at least my idiolect has a seriously asymmetrical phonology, no simple rounded/unrounded or voiced/voiceless pairs.

_________________
[:D] :se-og: :fi-al2: :swe:
[:)] :nor: :usa: :uk:
:wat: :dan: :se-sk2: :eng:
[B)] Image Image :deu:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Americanized by Maël Soucaze.