Eureka wrote:A related question is; does [face=SPIonic]ou][/face] become [face=SPIonic]ou]x[/face] before words begining in [face=SPIonic]r9[/face]?
annis wrote:I believe the current consensus is that the aspiration mark on the rho indicates that it's voiceless, not that actual aspiration is involved.
Miltiades wrote:What i'm trying to say is that we cannot exclude the possibility that rho had an aspirated pronounciation at the beginning of a word.
The neighbor dog seemed quite entranced
Is it before, during, or after the rho?
This intrigues me. When I saw it on this site it seemed far fetched, so I thought it was a mistake.annis wrote: rough breathing (or an H in non-Attic scripts)
Eureka wrote:This intrigues me. When I saw it on this site it seemed far fetched, so I thought it was a mistake.annis wrote: rough breathing (or an H in non-Attic scripts)
Anyway, so if outside of Attica "H" meant rough breathing, how did they write eta? (Double epsilon perhaps?)
I also can't see any reason why the Attic meaning of "H" would take precidence over the rest of Greece when the Koine was formed. After all, the inability to write down the aspiration would have been a considerable disadvantage.
Eureka wrote:Anyway, so if outside of Attica "H" meant rough breathing, how did they write eta? (Double epsilon perhaps?)
annis wrote:Miltiades wrote:What i'm trying to say is that we cannot exclude the possibility that rho had an aspirated pronounciation at the beginning of a word.
Well, I've just spent a few minutes sitting here, with my windows open, trying to make an aspirated rho. The neighbor dog seemed quite entranced.
In any case, trying to aspirate rho regularly leaves me with a voiceless rho. When I make a voiceless rho, the result is pretty breathy. Rho isn't quite like other consonant sounds, so I'm not too worried about the idea that the rough breathing (or an H in non-Attic scripts) was used to mark a voiceless rho.
Edit:: Ack! that should say or an H in non-Ionic scripts.
total lack of aspiration
1%homeless wrote:total lack of aspiration
Well, if you mean aspiration as in a fricative or "rough breathing," I don't see how this is possible. I mean you need a certain amount of air to have that toungue vibrating. Without enough air you just get maybe a flap or something. It's like the wind blowing on a flag, if not enough air is blowing on it, you don't hear it flapping. So regardless if it is voiced or not, is it actually possible to have a non-"aspirated" rho?
I always assumed that the reason O and E had two different letters each was to distinguish the subjunctive from the indicative, in thematic verbs. I'm suprised to hear that most dialects only had one letter for each.annis wrote:Before Athens took the Ionic script eta was written with an epsilon, and omega with omicron. The length wasn't indicated. (There might be sporadic exceptions to that, but I don't have my references handy.)
Speaking as an Australian, we hardly pronounce the "r" at all. In fact, the letter "r" most often acts as a modifier.Miltiades wrote:The greek rho is very sharp (it's similar to the way russians pronounce the english r if that helps...) In my opinion, that's a non-aspirated rho. I think it's a matter of personal perception of sounds varying from language to language. For example, if u hear the word "romance" from an english person and compare it to the way a greek says it, u can't miss the difference in the rho, which rough in the first case, at least that's the way i hear it.
Miltiades wrote:Well u have a point there but have u ever thought that you, i mean native speakers of english, may use the rho (r in english) with an aspirated tone in all cases?
P.S. Hey i've spent a month in WI and i've visited Madison. Great place!!!!
This makes complete sense. After all if [face=spionic]r9[/face] was "rh" when the alphabet was developed, you’d expect it to have had a letter of its own (equivalent to [face=spionic]x[/face], [face=spionic]f[/face] or [face=spionic]q[/face]).nefercheprure wrote:I was told that ``aspirated rho'' was first sounded as `hr' which was changed later to `rh' and to `r' even later.
The theory is not far fetched considering the evolution of English.
HWAET > WHAT > WAT (though still written what)
HW > WH > W in English
HR > RH > R in Greek
As I said above, the Greek "r" is completely different from anything in Australian English, so it should be easy.nefercheprure wrote:As for your attempts: I have found out that the most difficult sounds of any foreign language are those, which can be perceived similar to the sounds present in your mother tongue.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], John W., MSNbot Media and 27 guests