L vs. R

Here you can discuss all things Ancient Greek. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Greek, and more.
Post Reply
mingshey
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1338
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 6:38 am
Location: Seoul
Contact:

L vs. R

Post by mingshey »

A few days ago I talked on the Open Board about Korean( and Japanese) having no distinction between l and r. But yesterday, revisiting those Linear B character set, I was surprised to find that the Micenean Greek words written in Linear B had no such distinction, either; Linear B had no 'L-' series characters and the 'L' sounds were written with the 'R-' characters, and that added the similarity between Linear B and Japanese Kana system.( Kana can be directly used to write the Micenean Greek words!)

Was it only that the Miceneans had defective character set, or did they REALLY had no distinction between L and R?

Dionusius Philadelphus
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2003 10:08 pm
Location: Metro Philly, USA

Post by Dionusius Philadelphus »

L.R. Palmer, The Interpretation of Mycenaean Greek Texts, p. 39:
The existence in the syllabary of a system of oppositions plain : palatalized : labialized to the neglect of the oppositions voiceless : voiced : aspirate, which are essential to Greek, strongly suggests that the ancestral form of the syllabary was created for a non-Indo-European language. Such phonemic systems are found inter alia among Caucasian languages.
Considering that liquids are persistent in Indo-European, and that later Greek shows L or R where they're expected, a defective syllabary is a tidy explanation.

chad
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 757
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 2:55 am

Post by chad »

as a bit of trivia, apparently aristotle himself couldn't pronounce L and R differently... :)

mingshey
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1338
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 6:38 am
Location: Seoul
Contact:

Post by mingshey »

It's an old topic here :).
I bet IE keeps the distinction between R and L. But R is pronounced differently in different languages. Maybe the Greek trilling R is too close to L to keep its identity tightly.
In the Classical Greek there's a case of word conjugation that shows a change of value between R and L:
ἔ?χομαι -> ἦλθον
This may be an exceptional case, that there are change of values in following stops(ΡΧ and ΛΘ), too.

And in MG, some literature says αδε?φός is the word for "brother" while another says αδελφός.

Chris Weimer
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 561
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:34 am

Post by Chris Weimer »

Mingshey, you mean no written distinction, right? I've heard Korean spoken for years with a clear distinction between l and r. Medial ㄹ had an r sound, but final ㄹ had a dark l sound. At least, this was the way she pronounced it. She was from Seoul.

User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2037
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by Lucus Eques »

I believe that the trilled 'r' of Greek, Latin, and Italian, among others, is quite distinct from 'l' in any language. Still, this didn't keep Spanish from mixing the two quite a bit: peligro < periculum. And in English we have "colonel" from Spanish, where the spelling eventually came to match the sound: coronel.

Even modern Greek has both αδελφός and αδε?φός.
L. Amādeus Rāniērius · Λ. Θεόφιλος Ῥᾱνιήριος 🦂

SCORPIO·MARTIANVS

modus.irrealis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1093
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Toronto

Post by modus.irrealis »



Didymus
Textkit Fan
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:46 pm

Post by Didymus »

Coincidentally this evening I happened to be reading Chadwick's The Decipherment of Linear B. The following bit is apposite (p. 97):
John Chadwick wrote:One slight complication is purely the result of our system of transliteration. It is true that the sign transliterated ka can represent also ga or kha; but to the native reader the sign was not any one of these. It simply indicated a velar stop, the exact nature of which was determined by the context. It is therefore pointless to talk of a Mycenaean failure to distinguish between l and r; for convenience of transliteration we have to choose one or the other (in fact we arbitrarily selected r), but the Mycenaeans merely used the same set of signs for both sounds. English speakers have little cause to complain, when they use th for two different sounds, and gh for a whole series. Modern languages, however, generally prefer the opposite complication: the same sound is written in many different ways.

mingshey
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1338
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 6:38 am
Location: Seoul
Contact:

Post by mingshey »

Chris Weimer wrote:Mingshey, you mean no written distinction, right? I've heard Korean spoken for years with a clear distinction between l and r. Medial ㄹ had an r sound, but final ㄹ had a dark l sound. At least, this was the way she pronounced it. She was from Seoul.
Yes, as for Korean that's basically right but the final ㄹ(l) easily turns into initial ㄹ(r) when followed by a syllable starting with a vowel. Also the initial ㄹ(r) readily turns into "l" when preceded by a closed syllable(i.e. ending with a consonant). So in Korean l and r are truely in the same phoneme. And it doesn't end there. Korean phoneme ㄹ has quite different from just a mixture of l and r. Stangely enough for Europeans, some American pronunciations of (weakened) t or d in an unaccented syllable are heard as initial ㄹ(r) for Koreans(e.g. "t" in "data", "d" in the first "do" of "How do you do?", etc.). This much for the story of "ㄹ". :wink:

mingshey
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1338
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 6:38 am
Location: Seoul
Contact:

Post by mingshey »

Thanks for the quote, Didymus.

As for European languages, can I say that l and r are clearly distinct phonemes but the sounds can be grouped as liquids, and thus can undergo some interchanges in the course of translation, transliteration with inadequate writing system, or time? Stops also had undergone such interchanges between dialects(Attic: πότε; Ionic: κότε; Doric: πόκα).

quendidil
Textkit Member
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:39 am

Post by quendidil »

mingshey wrote:
Chris Weimer wrote:Mingshey, you mean no written distinction, right? I've heard Korean spoken for years with a clear distinction between l and r. Medial ㄹ had an r sound, but final ㄹ had a dark l sound. At least, this was the way she pronounced it. She was from Seoul.
Yes, as for Korean that's basically right but the final ㄹ(l) easily turns into initial ㄹ(r) when followed by a syllable starting with a vowel. Also the initial ㄹ(r) readily turns into "l" when preceded by a closed syllable(i.e. ending with a consonant). So in Korean l and r are truely in the same phoneme. And it doesn't end there. Korean phoneme ㄹ has quite different from just a mixture of l and r. Stangely enough for Europeans, some American pronunciations of (weakened) t or d in an unaccented syllable are heard as initial ㄹ(r) for Koreans(e.g. "t" in "data", "d" in the first "do" of "How do you do?", etc.). This much for the story of "ㄹ". :wink:
mingshey, in fact, in General American, the "t" in data is an R, an alveolar flap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flapping :o

mingshey
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1338
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 6:38 am
Location: Seoul
Contact:

Post by mingshey »

quendidil wrote: mingshey, in fact, in General American, the "t" in data is an R, an alveolar flap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flapping :o
Yeah, way to go! And thanks for the link!
But it is still covered by the phoneme "t", isn't it?

aso
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:11 am

Post by aso »

IE r and l were separate phonemes, since they're kept distinct in most of the daughter languages (esp. ones so distant as greek and latin, cf. inclutus and κλυτός versus fer? and φέ?ω). but since they are phonetically so similar, they are prone to overlap and get confused with one another (as has been pointed out in the case of korean and modern greek).

the indic evidence, which is usually a great help to understanding what the situation was in IE viz-a-viz greek, is actually useless because these two phonemes merged early in indo-aryan and then separated out again. so the cognate of κλυτός in sanskrit is śruta.

Post Reply