Re: Information about the ten tribes in the On-Ogur Hungarian confereration.



ranjit_mathews@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

> > > > > > > > incidentally, Menges shows that in "long range" correspondences
> > > > > > > > turkic /z/ corresponds to one type of dravidian r
> > > > >
> > > > > > > <zh> is the typical romanization of a Dravidian liquid an
> > > > > > > ancient Indian phonetician called "a type of r". Examples:
> > > > > > > Kozhikode, Tamizh.
>
> > > I didn't define the convention of using zh for a frictionless
> > > continuant; it just happens to be the convention that is currently
> > > used. The provenance of the convention is conceivably a European's
> >
> > it seems to be a convention for tamil or similar languages, and as
> > you point out a bad one so no need to apply it to turkish.
>
> I wasn't applying it to Turkish. I was just wondering which of the
> Dravidian r's Turkic z corresponded to and was wondering whether it was
> the kind of 'r'* that Dravidians transliterate as <zh>.

you said it was pronounced [Z}, which is wrong.

>
> * although it is similar to an American retroflexed 'r', I don't
> consider it a kind of 'r' since it is a lateral. The primary difference
> is that the tongue is pointed when making an American approximant r
> whereas it is rounded when making the Dravidian so-called <zh>. A
> secondary difference is that American approximant r is fully voiced
> whereas Dravidian <zh> is slack-voiced.

.

Relevant Pages
Loading