Russian /n/ vs /n;/ vs /n;j/ distinction

[pne]

Russian has a three-way distinction between /n/, /n;/ (palatalised), and /n;j/ (palatalised /n/ followed by /j/), which is exemplified in the triplet канак [kV"nak] - коняг [kV"n;ak] - коньяк [kV"n;jak]. (The words are, respectively, "South Pacific Islander, specifically a Hawaiian or New Caledonian"; "of draughthorses or old horses" (gen.pl. of коняга); and "cognac, brandy".)

This insight was from a message on the CONLANG list in a thread dealing with /nj/ vs /J/, in which Isaac Penzev explained that Russian has no phonemic /J/ but rather /n;/.

Comments

Palatalisation

[ubykhlives.livejournal.com]

The phenomenon of palatalisation as a secondary articulation is fascinating, particularly since it's arisen in so many different languages, as well as the fact that in many languages sequences of [palatalised consonant + j] contrast with both [non-palatalised consonant + j] and [palatalised consonant]. One would expect some of the contrasts to coalesce, from a purely phonetic point of view. It happens to a limited extent in Ubykh too. Bizarre, isn't it?

Re: Palatalisation

[pne.livejournal.com]

the fact that in many languages sequences of [palatalised consonant + j] contrast with both [non-palatalised consonant + j] and [palatalised consonant].

Is that so? I read that Russian was a little unusual in having such distinctions, and that other languages tend to collapse them or not have them in the first place. (I wouldn't know.)

Re: Palatalisation

[ubykhlives.livejournal.com]

Um. I might be confusing palatal and palatalised consonants. I know that in the first case, clusters of Cj do exist; the Australian language Gaagudju is one example, where n;j clearly contrasts with both n; and nj.

But after looking at Irish Gaelic, a language with comparable palatalisation to Russian, it seems you're right: Irish doesn't even have a phoneme j, let alone possibility of clusters using it. My bad - point conceded.