Once more on the letter ༢
W. S. Coblin. in a contribution (2002) to the ongoing discussion about the phonetic value of the Tibetan letter ,; (transcribed as v), has argued that this character has no phonetic value per se but is rather an orthographic device. A review of the previous literature and consideration of Coblin...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/10356/177961 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Nanyang Technological University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | W. S. Coblin. in a contribution (2002) to the ongoing discussion about the phonetic value of the Tibetan letter ,; (transcribed as v), has argued that this character has no phonetic value per se but is rather an orthographic device. A review of the previous literature and consideration of Coblin's arguments in contrast agree with the finding that before vowels and the glide -w- the letter v represents a voiced fricative, while before consonants it stands for prenasalization: in the former position. the value [y] is argued for. The use of final -v in Old Tibetan inscriptions suggests that in that position too -v has the value [y]. Finally, with a view to the internal reconstruction of the Tibetan verbal system. consideration is given to the question of whether the various phonetic values of v- represent a unitary phoneme. |
|---|