L vs. R
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1338
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 6:38 am
- Location: Seoul
- Contact:
L vs. R
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?
Was it only that the Miceneans had defective character set, or did they REALLY had no distinction between L and R?
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2003 10:08 pm
- Location: Metro Philly, USA
L.R. Palmer, The Interpretation of Mycenaean Greek Texts, p. 39:
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.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.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1338
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 6:38 am
- Location: Seoul
- Contact:
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.
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.
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 564
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:34 am
- Lucus Eques
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2037
- Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Contact:
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.
Even modern Greek has both αδελφός and αδε?φός.
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:46 pm
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.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1338
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 6:38 am
- Location: Seoul
- Contact:
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".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.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1338
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 6:38 am
- Location: Seoul
- Contact:
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).
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).
-
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:39 am
mingshey, in fact, in General American, the "t" in data is an R, an alveolar flap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flappingmingshey wrote: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".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.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1338
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 6:38 am
- Location: Seoul
- Contact:
Yeah, way to go! And thanks for the link!quendidil wrote: mingshey, in fact, in General American, the "t" in data is an R, an alveolar flap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flapping
But it is still covered by the phoneme "t", isn't it?
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:11 am
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.
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.