Talk:St'at'imcets language
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been rated on the assessment scale. |
|
Suggested article edit guidelines:
|
|
|
Please rate this article and leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
|
Very interesting. Does it have a script? If so, is that written right to left too? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:03, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- We'll have to get a image sample with a transliteration and translation below. It'd also be interesting to show the alphabet. --Oldak Quill 17:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
And necesary (to show the alphabet) because St'at'imcets doesn't use the Latin characters to mean the same things they do in English; a prime example is St'at'imc itself, spelled Stl'atl'imx in more "ordinary" spelling (although [x]={h} is not found in English at all). The St'at'imcets usage of [t'] to mean the palatal fricative (?) [tl/kl]] sound is only one of the variations from standard Latin usage (even as used by neighbouring languages such as Secwepemc or Nlaka'pamux). It should therefore be a given that the page should describe the IPA, the St'at'imcets spelling, the "traditional" Latin/English spelling, as well as a non-IPA prononciation guide. At present, the list of placenames on the St'at'imc page is given in St'at'imcets spelling - but it's not useful at all unless you're already schooled in St'atimcets orthography. Not that I could ever pronounce Tli'tl'kt anyway (T'it'qet I think it is now)Skookum1 09:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Further comment answering first post above - "does it have a script"? The Duployan shorthand was adapted by Fr. Lejeune of the Oblates for use with the Chinook Jargon by the Diocese of Kamloops. While it was mostly used for Chinook Jargon, the Diocese's publication Kamloops Wawa (Talk/News from Kamloops) had the occasional prayer or hymn in Secwepemc, Nlaka'pamux, Halkemeylem - and St'at'imcets. Not that the Duployan had any great ability at conveying complex gutturals, the palatal fricative, or even a decent range of vowels . . . Skookum1 10:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] /h/
The 1997 Van Eijk book states that [1] /h/ and /ʔ/ are classed as "resonants" (which I'm assuming is the same as sonorants) because they don't occur between or after consonants. Even after reading section 1.7 (which it directs me to), I'm not convinced that this is any compelling reason to classify /h/ as an approximant. I haven't read the entire book, but I'd imagine that there would be no part that will counter the notion that glottal approximants are physically impossible. /h/ should be classified as a fricative. Although, granted, it isn't technically either a fricative or an approximant, the overwhelming linguistic convention is to put it in the fricatives row of a consonant chart. AEuSoes1 05:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hi. Yes, sonorants = resonants. Here resonant (R) means a resonant consonant (i.e. excluding vowels). An approximant (in Ladefoged's sense) is a non-nasal resonant, or in other words, it is a higher level grouping of glides and liquids. Van Eijk himself does not use the term (many dont like it, perhaps because it has different definitions), using instead glide and liquid. But, this really doesnt matter much.
- No language in the world contrasts a "glottal" approximant and a "glottal" fricative. So, whether you call them fricatives or approximants is irrelevant. Actually, h is really a voiceless vowel and has no significant amount of constriction which by definition excludes them from a fricative grouping phonetically. It was originally thought that h was articulated by a constriction at the glottis; however, it is now known that the fricative sound you hear when you say h is turbulence that is present throughout the entire vocal cavity (which means, of course, that h is not glottal but rather placeless). "Glottal" approximants are not impossible and seem to be the norm. All voiceless approximants have a small noise source often caused by a higher volume of airflow — this is also true with h. (It seems that there is finally a brief statement at Approximant consonant#Approximants vs. fricatives probably thankfully written by Kwamikagami.)
- As there is no distinction between a "glottal" approximant & fricative, then phonological criteria can be used to classify the segment (and, in fact, phonological criteria are often used for classification even if the phonological analysis is at odds in certain places with the phonetics). Here van Eijk clearly presents an argument showing that h patterns with other resonants in reduplication processes where certain resulting sequences of consonant+resonant+consonant and word-final consonant+resonant must be separated by an epenthetic schwa.
- The chart with h as an approximant is exactly where van Eijk places it in his chart on page 2. So, there is no controversy here, at all. I would classify h myself no differently. If you disagree with van Eijk's analysis, then you should publish your analysis in a peer-reviewed journal so that we can cite the disagreement in the article. If you insistent on disputing this, then I suggest you invite User:Angr to the discussion, he knows quite about phonology. Thanks – ishwar (speak) 08:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Ahh, well if Kwami put that then I suppose I can accept as such. He's a smart fella. You've put a lot of good work into this page. Keep it up. AEuSoes1 12:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
