Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Phonology drift

From:John Vertical <johnvertical@...>
Date:Tuesday, December 5, 2006, 19:47
> >Another alternativ would be directly leniting the ejectivs. > >And since ejectiv fricativs, even unvoiced ones, *are* pretty marked, >they > >could then proceed to decay to voiced sounds directly. Does that sound >any > >better? > >Mmm, somewhat. Leniting them like that is still odd, but at least it's >natural that they would resolve to something less marked pronto.
So we agree that t' > z is not completely whacked out. Good. I'm actually also suspecting whether I should posit a proto-series of ejectivs in the first place... The oldest uwjge plans (back when it wasn't even a language yet, just an alphabet) have aspirates at their place but with the labial still lacking. I don't offhand remember what prompted me to use glottalization insted. /p_h/ should probably lenite to /f/ rather than /h/, but that's not bad, quite good actually. For one, it is the one and same phoneme leniting now in both branches. Then, /b d g/ are instead what go to /v z j/; then /p t k q/ > /b d g G\/ , + deaspiration. Well, it works, but I loose the originally-unrelated-ejectivs scheme. I'll need to check the other branches' details too, however. Maybe even consider whether this sketch should even be in this family... Just thinking out loud here.
> >(Actually, how do glottalized > voiced shifts proceed typically, anyway? > >Does it go along linear laryngeal laxing of glottalized > tense > modal, >or > >is there a glottal stop + voiced sound intermediate?) > >I think glottal+voiced is more typical: for instance Vietnamese realizes >its >initial implosives in variation between [?b) ?d)]~[?b_<) ?d_<)] where the >implosive has gone to preglottalized voiced
These come from clusters, not unitary glottal phonemes, AFAIK.
>and in glottalic-theory IE >Winter's law in Balto-Slavic is thought to be the same thing: the second >stop series became realised as [?b ?d ...] and then [?] had the same effect >on preceding vowels as inherited laryngeals.
.... but this sounds like slightly stronger evidence.
> >having t' k' originate from different series is half the fun... > >Sure, but that's going to require some weirdness no matter how you go about >it, especially with stop series breaking up and single sounds changing >phonation.
Certainly. The challenge is exactly coming up with a plausible course of that.
>For that matter, it's strange that while J\ is becoming ejective, nothing >comparable is happening to b. But then I notice that in your eventual loss >of labials you have b > ?; maybe this b was already p' ?
Nah, b > p' is rather unlikely. If there's only one voiced stop, it's most likely a bilabial; and if there's one ejectiv missing, it's again most likely the bilabial. ....also, I realized that if I delay the vel/uvl > pal/vel POA shift until after this step, I have g > k', which should be more plausible than J\ > c'.
> >Also, as interesting this is, can I however attempt to revert your >attention > >back to the 2nd phase in the original plan? The 2nd chain POA shift of > >alv/pal > dnt/alv, for example... > >Right. Fronting all the palatals to alveolars seems natural, especially >since you've allowed [c] to affricatize (as palatal stops love to do). >From >this point of view it is weird that [J\] doesn't yield a fricative, so in >this respect I prefer the first of your two chains of intermediates.
Yeah, I've been leaning to that direction, too.
>I'd expect all the old apicals to be dental afterwards; it's strange that >[t] and especially [z] don't dentalize. It seems to me likeliest that the >whole apical series would simply already have been dental before the shift >happened (i.e. [t(_d) s_d z_d n_d l_d]), and when the palatals became >alveolar the dental/alveolar contrast got picked up on as the >distinguishing >feature. > >Alex
Oops, yeah, /t t'/ are supposed to dentalize too. /z/ might too, but after v > D it could plausibly snap back to alveolar to fill the "hole" in the system. /f/ would probably need to > /h/, then, to explain how /s_d/ avoids a similar fate; the existence of new /s/ from old /S/ should also help there however. John Vertical _________________________________________________________________ Uutisista turhaan tietoon. Mitä ikinä etsitkin, MSN Search löytää hakemasi.