Re: Digest Number 210

From: dne44 <dne_at_dslextreme.com_at_hypermail.org>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 23:12:22 -0000

And John got to this before I had a chance (which is good, because
his explanation is technically correct while mine would have been an
approximation).

The tschibasch/Syvox connection can definitely be made, although it
helps if you pronounce things with a lisp like our good old inbred
Spanish Royalty and use the Hispanic 'x'.

- David

--- In OliveStarlightOrchestra_at_yahoogroups.com, "tschibasch"
<tschibasch_at_y...> wrote:
> Joy says:
> > there's no getting around the "x" vs. "sch" issue,
>
> Actually, think of "ixtapa". :-)
>
> Now that I think of it, "tschibasch" and "syvox" are closer than I
> would really like to think. :-/
>
> What we have in both cases is: CVCVC (C == consonantal, V == vowel)
>
> Let's compare them. We will compare by sounds, while maintaining the
> spelling.
>
> Romany Screwy Company
> --------- --------------
> 1) tsch s affricate vs sibilant, both hi-freq.
> 2) i y high front unrounded vowels
> 3) b v labio-dentals ** see note below
> 4) a o low back unrounded vowels
> 5) sch x affricate vs sibilant, related
>
> Note: The modulation from 'b' to 'v' is well-known. In some
languages,
> an intervocal /b/ will become a /v/. In some cases, this is
indicated
> through spelling (e.g. Irish uses /bh/ to indicate a /v/). In
Spanish,
> the 'b' and 'v' are now almost identical...
>
>
> John
Received on 2003-05-20 16:12:26