Except palatalization has nothing to do with any manner of rounding ([ʃ] may be rounded, like it often is in English, - in which case the precise transcription will be [ʃʷ] - or it may not). Palatalization ([ʲ]), on the other hand, basically refers to raising the middle part of your tongue while articulating the consonant.
In the first place I mean the aspects (perfective vs. imperfective verbs), in particular because the differences between them seemingly cannot be reduced to pure semantics, as those semantic differences themselves will regularly depend on purely grammatical circumstances.
That was my attempt to transcribe unrounded [ʃ], I found it in a book by Italian phonetician Luciano Canepari.
You might have slightly misunderstood Canepari. It's hard to tell without seeing the context. For certain, there is no direct connection between palatalization and labialization (potentially they can even co-occur, even though it's typologically rare).
). There are some patterns to these markers but mostly it seems random (compare to the Semitic u/i/a case markers which seem almost childlike by comparison). Oh and the marker -os can be either nominative or genitive depending on what set of declensions you're using.
Well, plural -s can get palatalized after -ll or -ny (alls /aʎ̟ʃ/, anys /aɲ̟ʃ/). However, I'd say the /ʃ/ in Catalan and in English is slightly different. Or at least I don't think I place my tongue in the very same way.
I think there are limits to how much we can appeal to subjectivity. If even Spanish speakers constantly say that Greek sounds like unintelligible Spanish, and Greek speakers vice versa (with common accounts of the natives mistaking one for the other at a distance), and if there exist objective and wide-ranging similarities in the two languages' phonologies and phonotactics, then it's obviously not all subjective. Appealing to individual words (X looks like a Greek word and not like a Spanish word) is mistaken because we're talking of unsegmented, continuous speech. This is precisely why it fools even the natives.
To put this more simply, Russians don't think of perfective and imperfective pairs as different verbs and aren't aware which one they're using - in this the Russian system is little different from Ancient Greek. There's the complicating fact that how closely these pair is a continuum, often resulting in networks of
Now that's oversimplification.
You're in a habit making impulsive, categorical, accusatory remarks without laying out any arguments for the other party to respond to, something I've observed you do every other message ever since you joined this forum. The civil and conductive way to act when feeling an urge to disagree is 1) withhold any categorical, accusatory remarks; 2) acknowledge some parts of the other's arguments or situations where they're valid 3) highlight the parts you disagreee with and/or situations where the arguments don't hold 4) provide reasons beyond your own personal opinion; 5) pad your message with politeness terms like "I think, in my opinion, it seems to me, I would say" and various modal expressions. In this case it's best to start a thread on the Russian forum.
Sorry, so far I haven't seen any arguments to support the over-generalized "Russians don't think of perfective and imperfective pairs as different verbs" to begin with. It's not my job to *disprove* it, you know, but a remark was necessary so that other forum members wouldn't get a distorted perception of the issue.
One is not required to support a generic positive observation with arguments, especially as a native speaker. One is required to provide arguments and other evidence when trying to convince someone that their observation is incorrect or incorrectly expressed. Then one is doing something constructive and positive. Otherwise one is engaging in a battle of "ur wrong im right", for which there exist other venues.
Well, I hope I qualify as an observing native speaker as well. As I said, to me your statement seemed subjective and over-generalized, so the urge to put it into the more acceptable, objective shape was natural. And, as you could note, I didn't make anything personal out of this disagreement.
This is a red herring - you know that I know that you're a native speaker, so even from this it's obvious that the truth of my statement isn't predicated on you being one. Being a native speaker only gives you some authority in making a positive generalisation. It doesn't absolve you from the need to disagree constructively.
You made a point-black statement that the generalisation was mistaken in being too wide. This cannot serve as a start for a productive exchange, because this is not a factual statement. It's indistinguishable from saying "you're wrong" without specifying anything else. I can just as well retort that what's overly general for you is just right for me and for the general reader. You could retort that I'm over-generalising our readership, and I could retort that you're over-generalising my statement about our readership, and so on ad nauseam. This is really a vacuous statement.
See points 1) and 5).
And going back to a 'sorted string' here, it may not be a coincidence that both represented 'frontiers' under constant strain from relatives & foreigners alike, throughout their formative centuries. The former likely helping with the plasticity of the brain, so the "good enough" of biology is called "change typically eliminates markedness." Or for a simplification, a 'cosmopolitan' Athens where the father speaks 1½ languages & the slaves help in raising the kids.
Next to Greek (1931), in load, the word παιδαγωγόν paidagōgón refers to that slave; later comes pedagogy, as our Greek friends know.
I just don't believe that. As I have been studying Greek I have thought that the arrangement of sounds is very close to Spanish, even the same endings of words usually in o, os, a, e. Otherwise the syllables are structured the same way, always ending in a vowel or s. Maybe Spanish doesn't have quite as many syllables ending in -i. Greek also doesn't have much b or rr. But that's really it. The buzz sounds absolutely the same to me. The video put up by Apmoy70 sounds very Spanish.
Well, we are going to have to agree to disagree.
This as well as your previous attempt ('quiterai') are rather puzzling to me, because you certainly realise that Greek orthography is very far from actual pronunciation, in stark contrast to Spanish. How can one adduce a transliteration that supposedly doesn't look like Spanish when it doesn't even look as Greek sounds? Even merquiades's transcriptions misses oi and ei which are simply /i/s. And to reiterate what I say in my previous message, segmenting words is cheating, because understanding is required for this. When people say "unintelligible Spanish" or "at a distance", they're conveying the fact that they're unable to segment what they hear. Observations like "Spanish doesn't have this particular ending" are impossible when this is the case. The comparion must transcribe unsegmented speech, at best with syntagmatic prosodic breaks (= linguist jargon for 'pauses'), IPA-manual style.
One could hardly disagree with the gist of this; nevertheless I think fuzziness should still belong to definite shapes and not to unbounded cognitive soup. That is to say, I believe one ought to entertain several theories simultaneously, but at the same time strive to define and clarify each one to the best of their ability - I'm strongly opposed to the belief that perceived uncertainty and complexity means giving up on finding (an) explanation(s), and to any form of 'the Gem'. One should not overly commit themselves to any one theory; but one should still attempt to apply specific theories to given facts and situations, but not to the exclusion of another explanation. In short, there can hardly be just one cause for any complex phenomenon, but each explanation should strive for clarity.
Those sounds are common in Spanish too, written g and j.
None of those sound like Flemish g/ch or Greek gamma/chi. This sound doesn't exist in Spanish AFAIK.
You understand that I gave a mix of palatal and non-palatal recordings for both langauges. The Spanish j can be post-velar, like in jábega; most of the time it's a velar fricative in stanard Castilian, and a velar approximant up to glottal fricative [ h] in Andalus and the Americas: pendejo. Before front vowels it's absolutely not (post-)velar in Spanish - here's how that sounds (cf. the palatal one in Russian).
They all sound very Greekish to me except that Greek has [çe].
Existent for those of us who like to pronounce words coming from Greek properly.
But not for the Real Academia Española (seudónimo, siquiatra...)! Is there any Spanish speaker who pronounces *pneumático instead of neumático?
Well, in all honesty, it'd be better to ask monolingual Spanish speakers for that. I'm so used to see ps- and pn- (in Catalan you just can't drop them) that they consistently hurt my eyes (apart from the fact that to me el doctor de l'ànima and el doctor de la figa are very different things
). I admit though that I find it easier to pronounce ps- than pn-.
Well, in all honesty, it'd be better to ask monolingual Spanish speakers for that. I'm so used to see ps- and pn- (in Catalan you just can't drop them) that they consistently hurt my eyes (apart from the fact that to me el doctor de l'ànima and el doctor de la figa are very different things
I have been in Greece for more than 2 weeks now and hear the language constantly. I now believe your analysis is correct!
Really? It doesn't sound Italian at all to me...
I don't know how Italian exactly sounds though...
(Italian has more vowels, of course, but that fact is likely a bit obscured.)
The VO word order is not quite a common feature of the IE languages. Many archaic IE languages accept and prefer the SOV order. It is enough to mention Latin, Persian and Sanskrit. Although nowadays a lot of the western languages evoluted to SVO, most of the Indo-Iranian languages conserve the SOV order as preference.
And also Galician, Asturian and Portuguese from northern Portugal.
