User talk:Malhonen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! - Gblaz 18:49, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ottoman Turkish

I was just wondering: have you got a source for the change you made on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic) about the letters kef (ك) and sağır kef (ﯓ) representing a velar and not a palatal n? Cheers. —Saposcat 06:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Euhm... I just know that the symbol ñ in Turkology is generally used as a sign of a velar nasal, unlike the palatal nasal of Spanish orthography. This holds true for all modern Turkic languages utilizing the symbol, too (Crimean and Qazan Tatar, for the least). I'll see if I can find a proper source, but I'm pretty convinced that Ottoman Turkish did not have a palatal nasal phoneme, while it did have a velar nasal. Malhonen 19:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I asked—by the way, I've changed the page in question a bit if you'd like to have a look—because I know that the phoneme expressed in Ottoman Turkish by sağır kef (ﯓ) is often realized as a palatal nasal (not as strong and noticeable a one as in Spanish, but palatal nonetheless) in Turkish nowadays. After a little asking around, I found that it also has velar nasal realizations (along with the most common alveolar nasal realization). I've now changed the page to reflect all three realizations. Any comments? Cheers. —Saposcat 20:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, now that you mention it, it sort of makes sense. The plosives have split in velar and palatal series, so why not the nasal, too? I'm just wondering whether any possible palatal realization of ñ should have been phonemic or allophonic in Ottoman. AFAIK, the plosive split was mainly caused by borrowings from Arabic and Persian, and neither of them have /ŋ/ or /ɲ/ for the same effect with the native /ŋ/. I would argue that [ɲ] in Ottoman (not speaking about Modern Turkish) would be no more than an allophone of /ŋ/. Besides, none of the major modern Turkic languages have a phonemic /ɲ/. Many of them do, however, have an /ŋ/ exactly where you'd find Ottoman ك or ﯓ corresponding to Modern Turkish /n/: Ottoman دكز ’sea’, Modern Turkish deniz, Turkmen /deŋið/ (deňiz), Kazakh /teŋiz/ (теңіз), Kirghiz /deŋiz/ (деңиз), Bashkir /diŋɡeð/ (диңгеҙ), Tatar /diŋɡez/ (diñgez) etc. Do you have a source for a phonemic palatal nasal in Ottoman? The velar nasal probably was phonemic at least at the point when the orthography was fixed. Malhonen 17:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, add the Latin version of Kazakh to that list. Malhonen 19:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] La Hora Chanante

Hi, I was wondering what on earth made you arrive to the article on "La Hora Chanante". Greetings. --Mrfoxtalbot (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)