Re: Brr (was: Re: A few questions about linguistics concerning my new project)

Mark wrote:
<<
Yeah, Arabic was the first thing I thought of, too.  Classical Arabic
had, IIRC, a 3-quality x 2-quantity system: a, a:, i, i:, u, u:.  MSA
still has that structure but I think the quantitative distinctions
have been replaced by qualitative ones.  Also, there seems to be a
mapping at work in some borrowings that turns short i and u into e and
o, respectively.
 >>

Among other things, I noticed the following distinctions in the
Arabic that I was taught:

[a:] vs. [A:] vs. [@]
[i] vs. [e] vs. [I] vs. [E]
[u] vs. [o] vs. [U] vs. [O]

Governed by something like this:

/a/ > [@]

/a:/ > [A:] / C["emphatic"]_
/a:/ > [a:] / elsewhere

/i/ > [E] / C["emphatic"]_
/i/ > [I] / elsewhere

/i:/ > [e] / C["emphatic"]_
/i:/ > [i] / elsewhere

/u/ > [O] / C["emphatic"]_
/u/ > [U] / elsewhere

/u:/ > [o] / C["emphatic"]_
/u:/ > [u] / elsewhere

The emphatic consonants are:

/q/, /t_?\/, /d_?\/, /s_?\/, /D_?\/, /?\/, /X\/, /r/, sometimes /l/.
Maybe /G/, too.  Nah, maybe not.

Can't explain /l/, and I can't explain /r/, but the rest are all uvular
or backward (and non-glottal).  And actually, it's only sometimes
/r/.  But, for example, if you had /ha:Da/ and /X\a:Da/, the first
would be [ha:D@], and the second [X\A:D@].

Such has been my experience, at least.

Oh, and for what it's worth, don't the Inuit languages usually
have a four vowel system?

-David
*******************************************************************
"A male love inevivi i'ala'i oku i ue pokulu'ume o heki a."
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."

-Jim Morrison

http://dedalvs.free.fr/

Reply