YACQ: Plausibility of a sound change

Hello, collegues!

This time, I need your help, or at least your opinion:
in short, this post is Yet Another Conlanger's Question.

A couple of weeks ago I was visited by a new conlang
idea (still unnamed;  as a joke, I refer to it as the
Ripe Apple Language).  After toying around with it for a
while, I discovered that the Ripe Apple Language must
be related to Kluna! :-)

After this finding, I decided to track both these tongues
to a common proto-language.  The task is simplified by
the fact that very little Kluna vocabulary exists and the
grammar of the language already was under revision --
which allows me wide opportunities to "cheat."

To make a long story short, I have a problem with the
way I'd like to deal with stops.  Kluna and the Ripe Apple
Language both have two kinds of stops:  voiceless vs.
aspirated in the former;  voiceless vs. voiced in the
latter.  Now, I could just say that Kluna continued the
proto-language stops and the Ripe Apple Language derived
its system through voicing and deaspiration:

   PROTO-LANGUAGE  KLUNA      THE R. A. LANG.
   voiceless       voiceless  voiced
   aspirated       aspirated  voiceless

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

Problem is, glottalised > aspirated doesn't seem very
plausible to me.  My question is, how does it look like
to you?  Is there any known example of this kind of
change?

Thanks in advance, and happy conlanging to all!

Tommaso.

--------------------------------------------------------------
        GLOSSOPOIESIS, "The hidden art of tongue making"
              Web: <http://www.glossopoiesis.net/>
  E-mail: trd@glossopoiesis.net ICQ: Glossopoietes (#24209008)
--------------------------------------------------------------

Replies