26

WARNING: The question is sooo many-sided, it is very wide and can be split into at least 3 different questions. I'll answer it all, don't tell me later that you haven't been warned the answer would be long. First of all, this letter has no sound of its own. The main function of the soft sign <Ь> in Russian is to change the sound of the consonant letter ...


11

It is not Spanish /l/ that "turns into" Italian /i/. It is that the Latin clusters pl-, bl-, fl- became /pj/, /bj/, /fj/ in Italian.


10

Spanish and Italian are both languages descended from Latin. As such, many of their words are cognate sharing a common Latin ancestor, but the sounds in these words evolved over time and evolved differently in each language. In Spanish, pl-, fl- and cl- generally became ll- (pronounced the same as Italian 'gl'): 6.3 Latin initial pl-, fl- and cl- ...


9

Theoretically, there is a difference in most cases. In IPA, the raised j symbol <ʲ>, represents "palatalization," or a "palatal secondary articulation." The concept of a "secondary articulation" is itself somewhat vague. A palatal secondary articulation might occur simultaneously, slightly before, or slightly after the primary articulation of a consonant,...


7

In the old Slavic languages, the sound [o] could never follow the palatalized consonants (which in those times also included the hushing consonants Ш [ʃ], Ж [ʒ], Ч [tʃ], Щ [ʃtʲ], and also Ц [tsʲ]), since in the Proto-Slavic language [o] in this position had changed into [e]. In the 12th-16th centuries in the Russian language, the pronunciation of the ...


5

An old question, but perhaps the answer might still be useful. First, I believe that regarding Slavic languages, iotation is considered a feature of vowels (iotated vowels are preceded by [j]), while palatalisation is a feature of consonants (during their articulation, the tongue is raised towards the speaker's hard palate). Of course, the terminology may ...


4

If the consonant in question is neither labial nor labialized, the lip position accompanying its pronunciation is characterized only by that of the neighboring vowel, it doesn't depend on whether the consonant is palatalized or not. For example, in Russian most consonants go in pairs, non-palatalized (“hard”) vs. palatalized (“soft”): /t/ vs. /tʲ/, /d/ vs. /...


4

You probably took the description of the second Slavic palatalization from some simplified description. It isn't the case that it would only happen before ě (yat') and not before i. It happened before both. The ě and i were the results of the monophthongization of *oi or *ai (if these two were actually distinguished at all). In Monophthongization of ...


4

From the point of view of the spelling, Ь simply means "the previous consonant should be palatalized". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatalization_(phonetics) to learn what palatalization is, it's a lengthy topic (P.S. Yellow Sky has a nice overview). Most consonsants in Russian come in pairs: palatalized/non-palatalized (also called soft/hard). ...


3

The so-called "Sound Law" and the thing that was regular is 1500 or more years old, when it was a general rule of articulation in the proto-language. It was a subconscious, unavoidable "law" in the same way that aspiration is in most dialects of English. It did not produce č, it produced fronted kʲ. Subsequently, this process was ...


3

First, you should keep palatal and palatalized separate. Norwegian has a palatalized fricative [ç] but doesn't have palatalized consonants, likewise Sanskrit, likewise, Hungarian and North Saami have palatals [c͡ç ɟ͡ʝ] or simply [c ɟ] but not palatalization (on labials, alveolars) – more on Saami belo. On the other hand, Russian hand Irish have a robust ...


3

What is often marked ě in Slavic studies was probably actually a long e (*ē, with some unspecified degree of openness). I am not sure there is any widely accepted intermediate *ě₁ that would be clearly distinct from the original *ē. One could simply consider *C₁ē > *C₂a. The examples that changed to an "a" could be: mozg‑ē‑nos > mozd’žanъ >...


2

From a diachronic perspective, this is simply retraction vs advancement. The place of articulation appears as the most "important" part of such a series, and so that's how the phenomenon is portrayed. One commonly cited dramatic example is Spanish, e.g. Latin DIXIT becoming modern Castilian Spanish dijo /'dixo/. In this case, the consonant cluster ...


2

I have known a few languages other than Polish throughout my lifetime, which include Russian, English, French, Greek, and Hebrew, but in none of them have I observed any consistent difference between male and female speakers. The differences are almost surely there. They may be subtle, or quite variable because they interact with other sociolinguistic ...


2

Just for (a random) curiosity :D : Latin pl, cl and fl bacame [ʃ] in portuguese (written ch). Example: planum > chão (doublet of "plano") plattus > chato (doublet of "prato") plenum > cheio (doublet of "pleno") clamare > chamar (doublet of "clamar") clave > chave ("doublet of "clave") flama > chama (doublet of "flama") flor > chor (later replaced by the ...


2

I would say, /l/ in specific Latin clusters was simply vocalized in Italian. That means the consonant became a vowel, which is not all that uncommon for a sound like this. Take for example r-vocalizations in German wer /veːɐ̯/ and English bear /bɛːə̯/. /l/ has been vocalized in Cockney, I think, feel [fiu̯], in Dutch goud 'gold' and Bavarian German varieties ...


2

I think palatalization of final s in such environments is the most common outcome, and I wouldn't trust native speakers not versed on linguistics since the difference is not phonemic, let alone represented in spelling. I also have the feeling that palatalization in nys is clearer than in lls. My s in anys is a downright /ʃ/, but in valls it's so soft that I'...


2

The answer depends on which definition of "phoneme" you use. Under the classical taxonomic definition, where you analyze actual sounds into a more abstract system, two sounds are allophones if their surface distribution is complementary, and if their surface distribution is contrastive, they are distinct phonemes. The concept of "conditioning environment" is ...


1

First, it is not true that plosives are only heard when they are released. VC formant transitions also exist, and can be used to identify consonants. In fact, when you encounter rounding or palatalizing coarticulation at the right edge of a vowel before a consonant, you have good grounds for claiming that you "heard" that the consonant is palatalized (or ...


1

L’Atles Lingüístic del Domini Català Native speakers Here are some self-aware discussions by native speakers noting the phenomenon: https://www.racocatala.cat/forums/fil/176056/grups-lls-i-nys https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/pronunciació-del-grup-nys-y-lls.2541968/ Grup d/Estudi de la Variació Dialectal (GEVaD) En posició final de mot, la ...


1

There is no IPA principle that prefers superscript rather than regular j based on pronunciation alone. Both [pj] and [pʲ] identify the same phonetic fact, but differ in phonological analysis. In writing [pj], the claim is that there is a cluster of consonants, the second being a palatal glide. In writing [pʲ], the claim is that there is a palatalized ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible