A Gaulish–Gaelic Correspondence: &lt;i&gt;S(O)Uxt-&lt;/i&gt; And &lt;i&gt;Suac(Hd)An&lt;/i&gt;

Maolalaigh, R. Ó

doi:10.3318/eriu.2005.55.1.103

Cited by 1 publication

(5 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ternes does not, however, claim greater nasalization for /h/ than for other fricatives. This may fit in with Ó Maolalaigh's (2003) conclusion that many words of Scottish Gaelic show sporadic nasalization due to rhinoglottophilia, triggered by high oral airflow consonants and/or /h/ rather than by nasals. /h/ is an extremely high airflow consonant.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 50%

“…The more obvious case is the orthographic mh vs. bh distinction, our word-medial and word-final conditions. This is the case where some sources describe an underlyingly nasal fricative, /ṽ/ (MacAulay 1992), and other sources state that this consonant itself is nasalized, although without specifying whether the phonological distinction is marked on the consonant (Ó Maolalaigh 2003). Other sources describe the historical consonant as having caused distinctive vowel nasalization on the adjacent stressed vowel (Borgstrøm 1941;Gillies 2009;Bauer 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…speakers did produce some tokens with nasalization. They did so significantly more often than for matched consonants in oral conditions, so this is not entirely a matter of spontaneous nasalization (as in Ó Maolalaigh 2003); it has to be caused by the nasal stop such as /m, n, N/ later in the word. This might seem like validation of Ternes' (2006) claim for Applecross Gaelic that distinctive nasalization on vowels spreads leftward and rightward until it hits either a stop consonant or a word boundary, resulting in forms like friamh [frĩãːṽ] 'root,' with nasalization throughout the word, including on three consonants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Historically, Gaelic distinguished oral /v/ (orthographic bh) from nasalized /ṽ/ (orthographic mh) (Gillies 2009: 238), as in the modern words sèimh /ʃɛːv/ 1 'calm' vs. gheibh /jɛv/ 'will get.' There are several analyses of this distinction in the modern language, but it is widely agreed that there is some difference between mh and bh involving nasalization at some timepoint, and that Gaelic is likely to have at least this particular nasalized fricative (MacAulay 1992;Ó Maolalaigh 2003) and possibly others (Ternes 2006(Ternes [1973). However, Ohala (1975) and Ohala and Ohala (1993) point out that if the velum is open by any substantial amount to allow air to flow through the nasal cavity, oral air pressure would be vented through the nose, and therefore air probably would not flow past the point of the oral constriction fast enough to create frication noise.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Stewart (2004) describes mh as distinct from bh in that mh causes nasalization on the surrounding vowels, but the consonant itself is realized as [v] for both (2004: 15). Ó Maolalaigh (2003) addresses sporadic historical developments, rather than making a general claim about the realization of mh. However, he states specifically that Ohala (1975) "is of course incorrect, as the Gaelic languages provide ample testimony for the existence of this phone" ([ṽ]; 2003: 120).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The aerodynamic puzzle of nasalized fricatives: Aerodynamic and perceptual evidence from Scottish Gaelic

Warner¹,

Brenner²,

Schertz³

et al. 2015

Laboratory Phonology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scottish Gaelic is sometimes described as having nasalized fricatives (/ṽ/ distinctively, and [ f̃, x, h], etc. through assimilation). However, there are claims that it is not aerodynamically possible to open the velum for nasalization while maintaining frication noise. We present aerodynamic data from 14 native Scottish Gaelic speakers to determine how the posited nasalized fricatives in this language are realized. Most tokens demonstrate loss of nasalization, but nasalization does occur in some contexts without aerodynamic conflict, e.g., nasalization with the consonant realized as an approximant, nasalization of [h], nasalization on the preceding vowel, or sequential frication and nasalization. Furthermore, a very few tokens do contain simultaneous nasalization and frication with a tradeoff in airflow. We also present perceptual evidence showing that Gaelic listeners can hear this distinction slightly better than chance. Thus, instrumental data from one of the few languages in the world described as having nasalized fricatives confirms that the claimed sounds are not made by producing strong nasalization concurrently with clear frication noise. Furthermore, although speakers most often neutralize the nasalization, when they maintain it, they do so through a variety of phonetic mechanisms, even within a single language.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 50%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%