Re: YACQ: Plausibility of a sound change

At 23.29 16/02/2001 -0600, you wrote:

>On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:00:51PM +0100, Tommaso R. Donnarumma wrote:
> > This is very plausible, I think, but rather boring, so I
> > decided to assign a three-way distinction to the proto-
> > language:
> >
> >    PROTO-LANGUAGE  KLUNA      THE R. A. LANG.
> >    voiceless       voiceless  voiced
> >    glottalised     aspirated  voiced
> >    aspirated       aspirated  voiceless
>
>I don't really understand how the glottalized series would come to be voiced
>in RA, unless my assumption that by "glottalized" you mean "ejective" is
>wrong.
By "glottalized" I do mean "ejective" (in Italian, the former is the
standard term, and the latter an uncommon synonym).

The passage from glottidalized to voiced is, I think, rather simple:
if the speaker releases the glottal occlusion prematurely, then you
have a (partially) voiced consonant.  I believe that this kind of
anticipatory phaenomena is rather common...

What was wrong was the passage from ejective to aspirated.  I did
find a tricky explanation for it, but that's what it was:  a tricky,
and rather unbelievable, explanation.

Regards,

Tommaso.

Reply