3 ms·
I don't actually perceive a difference. For that matter, my native language doesn't have [ŋ] at all (not even before velars), so it's actually tricky for me to
by int_19h 1y ago
I don't actually perceive a difference. For that matter, my native language doesn't have [ŋ] at all (not even before velars), so it's actually tricky for me to distinguish it in English as well.
But, as far as I know, the different nasals are phonemic in some languages of India. Which ones depends on which languages, but I do remember seeing at least one in which all four of these were distinct.
- danans 1y ago> but I do remember seeing at least one in which all four of these were distinct. None of the major Indian languages I'm familiar with have 4 nasal phones, from either the Indo-Aryan or Dravidian language families. In the Indo-Aryan languages, the convergence of the various nasals is so complete that they are all often represented with a single "dot" diacritic character when they occur at word junctions. I'd be open to hearing examples of Indian languages that have 4 nasal phonemes, though.
- int_19h 1y agoIt was Kannada, a coworker's language. Per Wikipedia it has five nasals, each with its own glyph: m (ಮ) n (ನ) ɳ (ಣ) ɲ (ಞ) ŋ (ಙ)
- danans 1y ago> Per Wikipedia it has five nasals, each with its own glyph: m (ಮ) n (ನ) ɳ (ಣ) ɲ (ಞ) ŋ (ಙ) There are 5 nasal glyphs, but like in other Indian languages, 2 (velar and palatal) are allophones of the others, leaving only 3 actual phonemes. Indian scripts are often overspecified, and not every glyph represents a phoneme.