Re: Nostratic (was Re: Etymology of English 'black'), Tech, and Albic

Replying to a FIVE DAY OLD post. I wasn't feeling well for a few days and
didn't have much energy. Sorry about that.

From: "Jörg Rhiemeier" <joerg_rhiemeier@...> (in response to me)

> > And yes, I did rip off Okrand a *little* for Tech phonology. I just
*had* to
> > have /qX)/ (which is actually /q_h/ in Tech, but tends to affricate in
> > speech). But /tK)/ had nothing to do with Klingon.
>
> Why should it?  /tK)/ occurs in several Northwest Caucasian languages,
> and in some reconstructions of Proto-Afro-Asiatic and Proto-Nostratic.
Lateral fricatives or affricates almost certainly were in Proto-Semitic
(Arabic /S/ and /d_e/ came from PS *K/*tK and *tK_>), based on evidence from
Modern South Arabian languages, which have /K/ and /K\/, I believe.

> > The /j/ and /w/ become secondary features of preceding consonants:
> > palatization and labiovelarization.
>
> Is this also what happened in Northwest Caucasian languages?
Don't know, it depends on whether NW Caucasian is related to NE Caucasian. I
just know NWC languages have /a/, /@/ and sometimes /a:/ as their only vowel
phonemes, with allophones of /e/ and /i/ after palatals and /o/ and /u/
after labiovelars. Tech vocalism was inspired by the Tsozhi dialect of
Abkhaz, which has 'underlying' vowels and 'surface vowels':

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~lingpub/misc/bert/cwyzhy.pdf (Adobe Acrobat)
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~lingpub/misc/bert/cwyzhy.ps (PostScript)

> In earlier versions, I remember you also had front rounded and I think
> also back unrounded vowels.  Are they still there, and if yes, where
> do they come from?  Umlaut?  Vowel harmony?
I still don't know if I'll have front rounded vowels, but I want to. Most
likely these will be surface vowels from long vowel + semivowel, or long
vowel + two semivowels:

& < a:j
Q < a:w
2 < oj < awj
y < uj < @wj
etc.

> When did the aforementioned vowel changes happen, and when was Tech
> alphabetized?  Spellings may reflect older states of the language
> (as in English, French or Irish), but the sound changes that do not
> show up in writing are such that occured *after* the language
> was alphabetized (or were transparent enough to be allophonic
> rather than phonemic, as i-umlaut in Old High German).
The writing system had to be adapted to the strange phonology, and a great
deal of conservatism was applied. I had to wing it. (It's also corresponds
more to the Arabic orthography of the language, where the vowel marks,
fathah-dammah-kasra, correspond to neutral-palatal-labiovelar consonants.
Single vowel marks = /@/ and double vowel marks = /a/, instead of /Vn/ as in
Arabic. Another more or less arbitrary adaptation.)

Now maybe I can keep up...

Reply