Re: The status of the glottal stop in Hebrew

On Jul 7, 2004, at 2:07 AM, Barry Garcia wrote:

> People get this image of Native languages as sounding like either
> Sioux or Angonquin, but the languages in California seem to have
> simpler phonologies (compared to what i've seen).
I have never thought of Californian languages as having simpler
phonologies than anywhere else. In fact dialects of Yokuts (Penutian)
have been used to argue for particular theoretical positions in
phonology and morphology (extrinsic rule ordering, feature geometry,
templatic morphology). The inventory is fairly straightforward, but the
interaction of the sounds is rather involved.

Remember, phonology is more than the inventory!

> For instance, Chumash (Inezeño) has the five "cardinal" vowels" plus
> barred i, which is the only slightly tricky vowel for me.
>
> And here's something to bring it back to the discussion on the glottal
> stop in Hebrew. Inezeño Chumash has a glottal stop after a consonant.
> However they are pronounced at the same time (or at least very closely
> in sequence.) It can also show up right before a consonant as well.
Consonant glottalization is a West Coast areal feature; not only
Penutian, but also Wakashan and Salish share this feature.

> The only other tricky thing for me with Chumash is to differentiate
> between aspirated and non aspirated consonants.
A good first approximation is to pronounce the voiceless unaspirated
stops as English "voiced" stops, which are generally voiceless
(especially in initial or final positions).

Dirk
--
Dirk Elzinga
Dirk_Elzinga@byu.edu

Grammatica vna et eadem est secundum substanciam in omnibus linguis,
licet accidentaliter varietur. - Roger Bacon (1214-1294)