Re: New H/G lang?

Thomas R. Wier wrote:

> Ejectives are a subset of glottalic consonants. Glottalic consonants
> are simply just consonants that use the glottis in manipulating the air
> stream. Ejectives are specifically consonants where the air flow is
> progressing outward, while another subset, ingressives, have the air
> flowing in over the glottis.
That's what I thought, more or less.  So it's not a matter of
"glottalic" vs "ejective" consonants, but perhaps "ejective=glottalic
egressive" vs some other kind of glottalic consonant.

> (Theoretically, a language could have ingressive pulmonic consonants
> too, but I don't think there is any attested language which features such
> a contrast.)
What about the famous "Voiced Snore" of Moundsbar? ;)

> An interesting feature of ejectives is that they are (almost) always
> voiceless, while ingressives are (almost) always voiced. (Apparently,
> the Mayan language Mam has simple nonaspirate voiceless ingressives,
> laut my linguistics professor.)
J.C. Catford's _Introduction to Phonetics_ gave me the impression
that this was a necessary consequence of the initiation mechanisms.
Voicing is vibration of the vocal folds, and by definition ejectives
are produced with the vocal folds completely closed -- they are opened
shortly after the pronunciation of the ejective.  So they cannot be
voiced (or if they can be, I sure can't imagine how).

Similarly, with glottalic ingressives, you close off a volume of air
inside your vocal tract at the point of articulation (lips, tongue,
whatever), and then move your glottis, with vocal cords nearly closed,
downward, which causes a pressure differential (low pressure in the
mouth, high pressure in the lungs)...  the differential causes air to
flow past the glottis and vocal cords, producing voice -- not because
the lungs are pushing it, as is the usual case, but because the
glottis is in effect *moving down past* a more or less stationary
column of air.  So the production of voice is an essential part of the
production of a glottalic ingressive consonant, and I'm not sure how
those Mam consonants could work -- though there is no end to human
linguistic ingenuity, so I have no doubt they exist, and there is some
good reason they are described as "voiceless glottalic ingressives."
:)

---------------------------------------------------------------
Ed doesn't know everything, but he hasn't figured that out yet.
Please break it to him gently.              edheil@postmark.net
---------------------------------------------------------------