Re: Phonation or Register Tones (was: Trial of the century?)

On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, Kristian Jensen wrote:

> I knew I couldn't be the only conlanger on the list who has thought
> of something like this, although tongue root (TR) features isn't
> quite the same as phonation. Actually, I haven't heard of many
> conlangs with a vowel harmony based on TR features. This really
> sounds interestingly kewl and suspiciously naturalistic. 8-)
It's as naturalistic as I can manage, without becoming overly obsessed
with a sub-field I can't justify as part of my "real" studies :) Basically
I've taken the idea of pharyngialization, as explained by tongue root
advancement, for Even (Lamut) and generalized & systematized it in the
language.

> Can you pronounce these pharyngealized vowels yourself? I have some
> data on a tungusic language called Even in a book titled _The Sounds
> of the World's Languages_. There are some sample words and eight
> x-ray tracings of the vocal tract of a Even speaker articulating
> both the plain and pharyngealized vowels. But even with all these
> data, I find it extremely difficult to pronounce the pharyngealized
> vowels as they are described to me. I have yet to hear them though.
> I myself have no problem in pronouncing the phonation contrasts in
> Boreanesian.
I _think_ I can pronounce it right. At least for single words.  In
connected speech at something approaching a "normal" speed, I get tangled
up and miss it.

ISTM that the reason pharyngialization hasn't been widely identified in
the North Tungusic language families (besides the fact it's not a feature
that Westerners are likely to think of noticing) is that it's accompanied
by slight but "more distinct" (to Russian, German, Japanese etc.
listeners) changes in the articulation of the vowel.  Since from very
early on investigators have been working under the hypothesis that
Tungusic is related to Turkic and Mongolian, where there's a different
sort of vowel harmony, there's been a sort of pressure to fit Tungusic
into the same categories.  Since it doesn't work very well, Tungusic has
been described by these investigators as having "irregular" or
"degenerate" vowel harmony.  The case might actually be that it's a
perfectly regular thing, just not working on the same dimension(s) as in
Turkic and Mongolian languages.

> No there isn't. The phonation of major syllables remains constant.
> Phonemically, creaky syllables always end in a glottal stop /?/ and
> clear syllables always end in a glottal fricative /h/ (or
> voicelessness). But there is a sort of regressive assimilation
> process of the glottal coda of major syllables in colloquial speech.
> As a rule, the /?/ in creaky syllables assimilates with the
> following consonant and becomes corresponding stops in colloquial
> speech. The /h/ (or voicelessness) in clear syllables remain
> constant. Both of these lead to some sounds I find particularly
> pleasing across syllable boundaries; pre-stoped nasals, geminate
> stops, and pre-aspirated nasals and stops. I also find voiceless
> sonorants at syllable codas rather pleasing. The only thing is I'm
> not as fond of are creaky coda sonorants - I suppose I can't please
> all my aesthetic tastes if I wanna be naturalistic. Besides,
> creakiness somehow fits naturally within the Boreanesian
> phonological framework.
Wow.  I've read a fair bit about Sino-Tibetan phonology and learned about
these sorts of features there, but I have no practical experience with it,
and have trouble producing/"hearing" (mentally) these distinctions.  Any
chance you'll have a Boreanesian audio file available sometime?

Kenji