Re: Kjaginic: 8 points of articulation

John Vertical wrote:

> Are there any linguolabials to actually consider, or just in theory?
Just in theory; I don't have any langs with pharyngeals or epiglottals
either, so I'd only include them for completeness.

> At any rate, if you want to make it maximally systematic, you could look to
> use the inherent 4x2 structure rather than assigning POAs in simple order.
> Something like pairing things by stridency:
> (labial) 1 - bilabial, 2 - labiodental
> (coronal) 3 - plain dental/alveolar, 4 - sibilant dental/alveolar
> (dorsal) 5 - palatal/velar, 6 - sibilant postalveolar/uvular
> (laryngeal) 7 - glottal, 8 - pharyngeal/epiglottal
>
> It won't work if you have a velar/palatal contrast, tho, and while tS =
> "emphatic" c and q = "emphatic" k individually make sense, pairing the two
> looks a little weird. Still, that's how I would probably do it…
>
> John Vertical
Initially when I had only the 4 POA, I used the palatal column for
postalveolar / retroflex sounds (and the Standard Tirelat alveolar
affricates, from a merger of the alveolar and retroflex affricates that
remain distinct in some Tirelat dialects). But the velars were in a
column separate from the palatals.

http://www.io.com/~hmiller/png/kjaginic.png

I might have stuck with this system if I didn't have to consider the
Tirelat dialects that contrast 5 different places of articulation. I
also want it to be useful for other Sangari languages as I discover
them; although I'm not familiar with Sangari langs, Kireethin (who are
Sangari/Zireen hybrids) have a language (Zharranh) with 6 distinct POA,
and Zireen languages (e.g. Virelli) can have up to 7.