Re: THEORY: vowel harmony [was CHAT: Another NatLang i like]

dirk elzinga wrote:
>
>One of the most interesting harmony systems is found in Nez Perce, an
>American Indian language spoken in the Northwest US. There are five
>vowels in Nez Perce:
>
>        i       u
>                o
>        ae      a
>
>These vowels belong to one of two sets: R=3D{i, ae, u} and D=3D{i, a, =
o}
>such that if a morpheme contains any vowel of set D, then all vowels
>within the harmonic domain (=3Dword) are of set D. Otherwise, all =
vowels
>are of set R. (Note that the intersection of the vowel sets is not
>empty since [i] is found in both of them.) What is interesting about
>this harmony pattern is that there is no obvious phonetic correlate to
>harmony; that is, there doesn't seem to be any one feature which
>triggers harmony (well, there really is, but it's a strange, twisted
>tale, and I fear I'm testing your patience already :-).
Test me! I'm very patient when it comes to phonology. I'm really=20
interested in this. You can email me privately if you wanna spare=20
the list. What is that feature that harmonizes Nez Perce vowels?
>
>Chukchi, a language of Siberia, has a harmony system very similar to =
Nez
>Perce, with the difference that instead of [i] in set D, Chukchi has
><schwa>, making a total of six vowels (and, BTW, providing an important
>clue as to the identity of the harmonizing feature).
Good clue! Has the feature got something to do with vowel tenseness?=20
Or perhaps it has something to do with how far away from the mid=20
central feature in vowels? (Actually, I think that's the same thing=20
as tenseness). Anyways, [<schwa> a o] are less tense and closer to=20
midcentral <schwa> than [i ae u] which are more tense and further from=20
midcentral <schwa>. Or maybe they have something to do with how distinct =

they are from each other, that is - how far apart they are within the=20
vowel diagram. So [<schwa> a o] are less distinct and closer to each=20
other in the vowel diagram than [i ae u]. In any case, the vowels can=20
be organized in the diagram as:

          i     u
             @ o
           &  a

   (where @ =3D schwa, & =3D ae)

In the diagram above, [@ a o] are clustered much closer together and=20
closer to the mid central vowel feature than [i & u].

Is that it? How'd I do?

I once played around with an idea that was quite similar to what I=20
just proposed for my conlang Boreanesian. The idea was to have a=20
vowel harmony involving frontness but where central [i-] was common=20
to both sets of vowels. The vowel system was a quadrangular type with=20
only two degrees of height:

          i   i-   u
            a    Q

     (where i- =3D high central unrounded, Q =3D low back rounded)

So the first three on the left [i a i-] were members of one set,=20
while the last three on the right [i- Q u] were members of another. I=20
can easily imagine such a system evolving to one similar to Nez Perce=20
or Chukchi. I abandoned the idea for Boreanesian fearing that a=20
quadrangular vowel system with only two degrees of height had no=20
precedents in the natural world. I might just reconsider once I'm a=20
bit more enlightened about Nez Perce and Chukchi.

-kristian- 8)