From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 47238
Date: 2007-02-04
----- Original Message -----From: Brian M. ScottTo: Patrick RyanSent: Friday, February 02, 2007 9:01 PMSubject: Re[2]: [tied] Re: Fun with prenasalized stops.txtAt 9:11:49 PM on Friday, February 2, 2007, Patrick Ryan
wrote:
> tgpedersen<mailto:tgpedersen@... com>
[...]
>> Matisoff: Handbook of Proto-Tibeto- Burman
>> "
>> Of particular interest is the most anciently attested
>> Qiangic language, Xixia (Tangut), where Nishida (1964/66,
>> 1976) reconstructs a voiced prenasalized series. There
>> are at least 5 striking etymologies (discussed in JAM
>> 1978b: 18) where there is independent Lolo-Burmese
>> evidence for the nasal prefix which Nishida reconstructs:
>> 'ruler, lord, emperor'
>> Xixia *ndzï (N. 1976:35)
>> Proto-Lolo-Burmish *m-dz&w2 > Lahu jô-mô, Luquan nts'y,
>> Nasu dz'j33-mo33, WB cûi 'rule, govern'
[...]
> Why should anyone have to even point out that
> pre-nasalized /d/ (/Nd/) is not even vaguely related to
> /n/ + /d/ from /m/ + /d/?
What, precisely, bars a development /m/+/d/ > /Nd/?***
What, precisely, in your opinion, is the phonetic difference between /n/+/d/ and /Nd/?
Patrick
***
> Pre-nasalized stops, in those languages in which they
> _actually_ occur are phonemic.
Which says nothing about the source of the phoneme.
/S/ is phonemic in PDE, but many instances derive from EMnE
/s/+/j/ (as in <special> and <mission>); /c^/ is phonemic in
PDE, but many instances derive from EMnE /t/+/j/ (as in
<fortune>).
Brian
***You have brought up an excellent point for which I have no ready answer.
In the examples above, we have a reconstructed */m/ + */d/ which becomes /nd/ or /Nd/.
We could imagine that for the most part, this is simple assimilation of a labial nasal to a dorsal stop -> dorsal nasal.
But I am not aware that there is a formal phonetic difference between /nd/ (actually /n/ + /d/) and /Nd/.
So I ask you: what criteria should we use to judge whether the [nd] is phonemic (/Nd/) or simply compositional (/n/+/d/)?
Patrick
***