Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Phonology drift

From:Alex Fink <a4pq1injbok_0@...>
Date:Sunday, November 26, 2006, 18:59
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 18:21:47 +0200, John Vertical <johnvertical@...>

>>I have to say, some of these sound changes strike me as very >>bizarre--in particular, the following: >> >>p' > b' >>t' > z >>k' k g N > ?j c J\ J >> >>I suppose if all velars become palatal, that's one thing, but >>wouldn't /k'/ become /c'/? Those are a bit less bizarre than the >>first two, though. As written, they strike me as a bit implausible. Is >>there any similar natlang sound change? I suppose p' > b' is >>kind of usual, but it does strike me as kind of bizarre that with >>four ejectives, this is the only one that turns into an implosive, >>the resulting being a language with one ejective and one implosive. >> >>-David > >To be exact, the glottalized stops probably shouldn't be considered ejectiv >at the protolang stage; maybe rather preglottalized ?p ?t ?k ?q. Most >branches have consistently voiced reflexes for all but the backmost one, so >the others likely first voiced to ?b ?d ?J\. Then, lenition; and as I wrote, >postulating an implosiv intermediate for the bilabial is only required if I >try to explain J\ > t' as also going via an implosiv. In fact, I do like >better the other option of just directly ejectivizing it, followed by >lenition to s' & fortition to t'. Or maybe direct backing, since the other >palatals also go to alveolars, but then it's having c but not c' affricatize >that would seem odd. But surely not completely implausible. I think Abkhaz >does something similar, where q > X while q' stays put? > >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. 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