Re: Proto-Altaic Phonology (inc. Vowel Harmony)

--- Vasiliy Chernov <bc_@...> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 01:18:14 -0700, Danny Wier <dawier@...>
> wrote:
>
> >Not only are the databases online, but they can be downloaded and
> >viewed and manipulated with Sergei's own program.
>
> BTW, I think the program can have a lot of other linguistic
> applications.
> Personally, I keep most of my conlanging stuff in Starling dbf files.
> But unfortunately, it isn't enough user-friendly. I think only people
> suited to DOS will like it. This winter I heard that a version for
> Win95/NT was nearly ready, though.
I know!  I'm still trying to figure out how it works (being a DOS-based
program is giving me major 80s flashbacks), but you can do a helluva
lot with Starling.  There outta be an e-mail list for the program as a
matter of fact!

(no, I won't spam ;] )

> >Consonants:
> >
> >Labials: p' p b m
> >Dentals: t' t d n r l s z
> >Palatals: ^c' ^c ^3 'n 'r 'l ^s j
> >Velars: k' k g N (= eng)
> >Vowels: a e i o u "a "o "u
> >(the last three could also be ja, jo, ju)
> Don't forget tones...
Oh yeah, I forgot.  The tones seem to be based on Korean and Japanese
reconstructions though -- I don't know of any Turkic, Mongolian or
Tungusic langauges with tone, unless old Manchu does...

> In the other branches the disyllabic stems often contracted, with the
> first vowel being modified by the second (i. e. reverse to 'vowel
> harmony'). The vowel harmony in suffixal syllables (in Turkic etc.)
> is
> considered secondary.
Yeah, that explains umlaut vowels in roots and not just suffixes.  That
sounds a little like what I call "Wier's Law" (just kidding) -- the
tendency of languages to compress a CVCV group to CVVC then CVC, where
one vowel disappears but not before influencing the other.
[ob-conlang] That's a sal9ient feature of Tech, and possibly also
Quaelitz.

> The initial variant of his reconstruction is explained in detail in
> "Altayskaya problema i proiskhozhdeniye yaponskogo yazyka" -
> downloadable from the same site, but AFAIK never translated into
> English.
Okay, any Russian speakers here?  Just kidding.  (I'm still learning
now!)

> Note also that Starostin mostly accepts O. Mudrak's reconstruction of
> Proto-Turkic vowel system (with oppositions e ~ ä, a ~ a2 and o ~ O).
> These oppositions are not consequentially marked in the databases
> since
> here the reconstruction depends on the Chuvash and Yakut data which
> are
> not always available.
Yeah, I favor a more conservative "Turkish square" eight-vowel system
(that's Anatolian Turkish, not Azeri which has nine vowels).  Then
again, maybe you could construct with nine vowels if you have a-umlaut
(for Azeri and Turkmen: a "schwa" in both Cyrillic and Latin) and e...

> Funnily, it seems that Proto-Altaic reconstruction is now based on
> a larger root list than Proto-IE... despite the fact that Starostin
> includes in his main database only roots attested in three or more
> branches (with some exceptions for the pronominal morphemes and the
> like).
I wouldn't doubt it.  Starostin is very pro-Nostratic, and cites
Ilich-Svitych (and maybe also Dolgopolsky) in his data for not only
Altaic, but North Caucasian (but to a MUCH lesser degree, and as a
result of Kartvelian or other influence).

DaW.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/