Re: Phonology drift

> >So the change relevant to your confusion would be
> >b d J\ > B z j\ / ?_
> >and I might actually do the same before other voiceless plosivs, too, as
>the
> >smaller details are still up for tweaking.
>
>?_ strikes me as an odd environment to lenite stops to fricatives in -- I
>don't know about _pre_glottalized fricatives per se, but glottalized
>fricatives are a rarity.
Fair point ... 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?

(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?)


>Given the inventory you started with I'd find a chain shift more likely:
>nonglottalized  b d J\ > B z j\ (perhaps even for greater distinctness from
>the preglottalized series), and then  b' d' J\'  lose their glottalization.
>That would also help explain the later  J\ > t' : perhaps the
>glottalization didn't quite disappear on J\.
>
>Alex
But having t' k' originate from different series is half the fun... One,
albeit contrived, possibility is 1) voiced > brethy, 2) eject. > voiced, 3)
voiced > fric, 4) brethy > voiced? The first two steps would be shared with
yet another branch, but the last feels a bit too back-and-forthy...

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...

John Vertical

_________________________________________________________________
Nyt löydät etsimäsi tiedot nopeasti niin koneeltasi kuin netistä.
http://toolbar.msn.fi