Re: Nasalized fricatives ...

Whoha, lotsa a replies suddenly. Thanks for the confirmations of natlang
precedent! I'll be responding to Meghean-specific points below in my usual
incoherent fashion ...

> Andreas Johansson wrote:
>
> > I was reviewing Meghean phonlogy earlier today, and it occured to me that a
> > series of nasalized fricatives [B~ D~ G~] would be quite the thing to make
> > would-be learners pull their hair out. They'd occure as initial mutations
> of
> > nasal stops, which as an added bonus means the definite form would be less
> > dysfunctional (indef and def would then only coalesce for words beginning
> in /s l r j w i e/).
BP:
> Way to go! And I still think you should have an /s/ > /h/ mutation!
Ray:
> But that could surely be still achieved?
I'm considering /s/>/h/ mutation. On the plus side, it would yield some totally
hysterical mutations like _seomas_ ['Somas] "creation" > _sheomas_ ['hjomas]
"the creation" and _sem_ [Sem] "tree" > _seshem_ [Se'hem]. On the minus side,
it might make [s] a rarer and [h] a commoner sound than I really want.

It occurs to me right know that it would imply the existence of words like
_tash_ [tah], which I'd have every excuse to pluralize as _tans_ [tans]. That's
probably to much to pass up along with _seshem_ [Se'hem].

I've considered having [r\] as the mutated ("fricativized") version of [r], and
even of "anti-mutating" [l] in non-mutating positions to [K\], but I do not see
any reason the definite form _shouldn't_ be dysfunctional in some cases. In any
case, it's hard to see what it could _do_ to [i e j w], at least as long as I
don't allow [j] before front vowels, which isn't gonna happen.


> > Words in which the little monsters would occur include _mhedh_ [B~eD] "the
> elf",
> > _nhagh_ [D~aG] "the dwarf"*, and _nhoch_ [G~ox] "the day". By parallel to
> the
> > development of oral stops, one'd also expect them to occur medially in some
> > words, but I think I'll stomp that out with a bit of merging and leveling.
BP:
> Why?
Ray:
> Aw!! Keep 'em.
I suppose the chief reason not to keep 'em is sheer laziness; introducing them
initially really only amounts to change the pronunciation of written 'mh',
'nh', 'ñh', but having them everywhere will force me to look thru the entire
lexicon (OK, it's not very big yet) and decide for each intervocalic and medial
nasal whether it descends from an ancestral geminate, in which case it would
persist, or from a solitary nasal, in which case it would turn into a nasalized
fricative. I'd also have to convince myself of a more intricate reason not to
have pl an>aD~, which I don't want to happen. Deriving it from a geminate is
the obvious solution, but, since it's supposed to be "the same" element as the
infixed -n- in plurals like _ñoch_>_ñoñc_, that's perhaps rather odd.

The really bright side of having them finally is that it would suggest the
existence of a plural formation class of the type _gamh_>_gam_. I like the
thought of orthographic plural by truncation.

But I suppose you've convinced me to have both s>h mutations and medial/final
nasalized fricatives. Which means I need to redecorate the phonology section of
my Introduction to Meghean by flamethrower.

This means, of course, that the relay texts I've done in Meghean would become
partly obsolete - off the top of my head, _mememe_ "our mother" would become
_memhemhe_ or _memheme_ depending on whether I decide the last 'm' comes from
ancestral /m/ or /m:/. Oh well, such is life. I might post updated versions
somewhere if I get round to it.

It's worth noting that even entirely regular inflections can get pretty hairy by
now; eg _ñoch_ [Nox] "day", _ñhoiñc_ [G~ojNk] "of the days". Neither onset not
nucleus nor coda is left intact!

                                                            Andreas

Replies