Re: Phonology - request for comments

Eric Christopherson <raccoon@...> wrote:

> Until this point, my Proto-Dhak phonology has looked like this (monospaced
> font is helpful!):
>
>          UVP  AUVP   VP   UVF  VF  N    A
> bilabial p    p_h    b    p\   B   m    w
> dental   t_d  t_d_h  d_h  T    D   n_d  l
> alveolar t    t_h    d    s    z   n    r
> palatal                                 j
> velar    k    k_h    g    x    G   N
> uvular   q    q_h    G\   X    R   N\
> glottal  ?    ?_h         h
> 1) I don't want to use BOTH dental and alveolar stops, and BOTH velar and
> uvular sounds, but I do want a variety of sounds so that they can develop in
> different ways in the descendent languages.
The dental/alveolar distinction is not very pronounced, *unless* there's
different allophonic behaviour maybe. For example, let dentals alone while
alveolar become postalveolar before front vowels.

/t_di/ = [t_di] or [ti]
 /ti/  = [tSi]

The same for velar/uvular (for example /ki/ = [ci] and /qi/ = [ki]).
If you want more variety, you could try a labiovelar series (/k_w/,
/g_w/, etc.) or really coarticulated sounds (kp, gb, Nm ties), or
prenasalized stops (mb, nd, Ng, N\G\).

> 2) If I do eliminate either the dental or the alveolar set, I would still
> want to keep the fricatives, but they would seem out of place without their
> corresponding stops.
Why? English has /T/ and /D/ and no dental stops. Conversely, Spanish
has alveolar /s/ but dental /t_d/, /d_d/.


> Does it even make sense
> for lateral fricatives to become interdental? Also, is there such a thing as
> an aspirated glottal stop? I think it's possible, but I'm not sure.
Yes and yes IMHO. Consider Japanese allophones of /h/, [P] and [C].
See how Spanish changed /S/ into /x/! As for the asp. glottal stop,
I think it's perfectly possible, though it may not be very distinct
from the non-aspirated one if you emphasize it at the beginning of
words. I myself cannot say sentence-initial /a/ without actually
pronouncing [?a], so to distinguish /a/ and /?a/ I would pronounce
/?a/ = [?_ha].

>
> Here are some of the sound-change rules I've thought up so far:
> p_h > pp\
> t_h > ts
> k_h > kx
> p_> > p (maybe pp)
> t_> > t_d or t_d_h, thence > tT
> k_> > q
> ?_h > h
> K   > T
> K\  > D
>
> Do those sound changes make sense? I have a pretty consistent pattern for
> aspirated stops (affricatization), but there isn't really a pattern for
> ejectives. Does it make sense for /t_>/ to go forward in the mouth but /k_>/
> to go back?
Hmmm... I don't think so. /k_>/ > /q/ sounds fine, since the glottal closure
could push the sound backwards, but /t_>/ > /t_d/ looks strange. Could be,
though.

>
> Well, thanks for the comments, everyone :)
You're welcome.


--Pablo Flores