Re: Nasal semivowels/fricatives?

On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Roger Mills wrote:

> In a message dated 2/15/2000 8:46:03 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> Christophe.Grandsire@BDE.ESPCI.FR writes:
>
> << I know that classification, and I know that some phoneticians classify
>  nasals as stops. Personnally I don't like this classification, as nasals
>  certainly don't behave like stops (depending on the languages, they often
>  behave like fricatives, and even approximants!). Nasals are different from
>  stops as there is no blockage in the air flow, unlike stops (yes, there is
>  blockage in the oral cavity, but the nasal cavity is wide open and stays
>  wide open without discontinuity, just like a fricative or an approximant).>>
This is one of the great phonetics/phonology divides. If you
define a stop as complete blockage of airflow, then sounds such
as [m, n] are clearly not stops. So why would someone want to
redefine a stop by adding the qualification "in the oral
cavity" to the condition "complete blockage of airflow"?
Contrary to Christophe's assertion above, there are many
languages which treat nasals and stops identically WRT to
certain phonological processes. Let me give you a Shoshoni
example (you had to know I'd get Shoshoni in the discussion
somehow!)

In Shoshoni, there are lenition processes which affect
underlying voiceless stops and nasals. One of these alternates a
voiceless stop with a voiced fricative in intervocalic position:

        [pia]      'mother'
        [nyBia]    'my mother'

        [kasa]     'wing'
        [nyGasa]   'my wing'

And so on. This process also applies to nasals [m, n] to yield a
nasalized [w] and a nasalized [y] or tap:

        [mo'o]     'hand'
        [nyw~o'o]  'my hand'

        [naiBi]    'girl'
        [nyr~aiBi] 'my girl'

(nasalized [y~] only occurs following front vowels; nasalized
tap occurs elsewhere).

>     Total agreement here.  Phonetically "nasal stop" is redundant, since the
> definition of "nasal" implies "stoppage of the oral air-stream, with lowering
> of the velum which allows release of the air-stream  thru the nose".  The
> term "stop"implies
> stoppage of the oral air-stream, raised velum, then release of the blocked
> air-stream thru the mouth.  (These are my words, not direct quotes, so carps
> and cavils are OK).
Well, "nasal" implies only nasal airflow, with or without
concomitant oral closure. There are nasal(ized) vowels, after
all.

> Within the _phonological/phonemic_ system of a given
> language, it might be convenient to class nasal with stops, or with
> resonants, or vowels, whatever, depending on how they pattern in that
> specific lang. -- but such analyses may or may not depend on the _phonetics_.
Yes. See the Shoshoni examples above. Although I would contend
that the lenition of nasals in Shoshoni is as much a product of
phonetics ("ease of articulation") as the corresponding lenition
of voiceless stops.

> >> What I call "nasalized stops" are real stops, that's to say the airstream
> passes a
>  little and then is blocked in both the oral and nasal cavities. >>
> As you describe it, it sounds like what I would call a "prenasalized stop"
> which, in a given language, could function as a unit.  Fijian, best described
> as a CVCV type lang., has them-- hypothetical /saba/ pronounced [samba]
> syllabified sa+mba; a word like /basa/ [mbasa] mba+sa is also possible--
> whereas Engl. and probably French would put the syllable break in "samba"
> between the m and b, and "mbasa"is not a possible Engl. or Fr. word.
Fula/Pulaar is reported as having a constrast between nasal-stop
clusters and prenasalized stops. I don't know the arguments well
enough to comment (but I will)--they seem to rest on duration of
nasal airflow; the cluster has a longer period of nasal airflow
than the prenasalized stop.

> (PS my
> Kash lang. has prenas. stops too, but only in medial position.)
Only in medial position? Then what is your evidence that they
are prenasalized stops rather than clusters? The most telling
argument for prenasalized stops is if they can occur
word-initially; otherwise, the jury's still out, unless you have
other compelling evidence. Of course, it's your *created*
language, and if you say that they are prenasalized stops, then
who am I to argue? :-)

Dirk

--
Dirk Elzinga
dirk.elzinga@m.cc.utah.edu