> Van: Ed Heil <edheil@...>
> Aan: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG <CONLANG@...>
> Onderwerp: Ejectives, was Re: New H/G lang?
> Datum: dinsdag 12 oktober 1999 23:24
>=20
> Thanks, Rob. That clears things up considerably. Though how anyone
> could tell the difference between an ejective and a consonant followed
> by a glottal stop is beyond me!
=20
It is hard to hear!
> I don't believe ejective nasals are possible, because the glottis
> cannot be used to produce an airstream in the nasal tract, only the
> oral cavity.
They do exist: Sechelt (Salishan) q@m'=E9l 'to become high tide'
also difficult to pronounce: n@w'os 'face',=20
> And there can be no voice with an ejective, because the
> vocal cords are shut completely in order to produce the ejective
> pressure. And ejectives must be of fairly short duration, because
> there is a fairly small volume of air available above the glottis.
> But beyond that, anything's possible: glottalic fricatives and
> affricates are certainly common enough.
Thomas wrote:
> So, does this language have a phonemic glottal stop? If so, wouldn't
> it be better just to say it's a consonant cluster in which a glottal st=
op
> is the second element in the cluster?
Yes it is a consonant cluster. Nevertheless it is a minimal pair in
Yucatec.
> Besides, "glottalic" (as an adjective)
> is already most often used in the literature to refer specifically to t=
he
> air stream mechanism, not the place of articulation ("glottal" is used
for
> that).
We must keep "glottalic" for air stream mechanism and discard the term
"glottalized" (and use "ejective"). I even don't know of a natlang that h=
as
[p?] or [t?] instead of [p'] or [t'].=20
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Ed doesn't know everything, but he hasn't figured that out yet.
> Please break it to him gently. edheil@postmark.net
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>=20
> R. Nierse wrote:
> > I used a different definition of glottalic.
> > When I said glottalic I meant 'consonant followed by glottal stop'.
> > I made this distinction because in Yucatec there is a minimal pair th=
is
> > way.
> > Maybe the above definition is better.
> > What about ejective nasals and sonorants and sibilants?
> > They cannot simply be ejective, because the airstream is still there,
even
> > though they function that way in a phonology.
> >