Re: Laryngeal values

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alexandru_mg3" <alexandru_mg3@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe the laryngeals have had the followings phonetic values
> > h1 = x
> > h2 = xH
> > h3 = xW
> > even the contested h4 could have a chance as xWH
> >
> > Arguments:
> > 1. This outputs will be in line with g, gH, gW(H) etc...
> >
> > 2. The reductions :
> > *h1e /xe/ > *He > he
> > *h2e /xHe/ > *H&/a > ha
> > *h3e /xWe/ > *HWe > ho
> > have sense.
> >
> > 3. the vocalisations have valid phonemic outputs
> >
> > *h3nh3mn. > h3.-nh3.-mn. /xW.-nxW.-mn./ > /xo-nxo-mn./ > /Ho-nHo-
> ma/
> > > onoma
> >
> >
> > *ph2ter > pxH.-ter > pH&-ter
> >
> > x. > He
> > xH. > H&
> >
> > Marius
> >

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "C. Darwin Goranson"
<cdog_squirrel@...> wrote:

>
> This WOULD make sense, save for one glaring problem: how do you
> aspirate a fricative, especially a velar or uvular one? Would
> aspiration even be noticeable?
>
>

Yes, I think so, because the sound xh really exists in reality...

..."xh is a voiceless uvular fricative. "

In fact I found an existing language that contains the full sequence:
x, xw, xh, xhw (before to make my above supposition, otherwise to
make only abstract suppositions doesn't make sense)

"L9/10 Heiltsuk (Wakashan): b, p, p', d, t, t', dz, ts, ts', g, k,
k', gw, kw, k'w, G, q, q', Gw, qw, q'w, s, x, xw, xh, xhw, h, h', m,
m', n, n', dl, tl, tl', l, lh, l', w, w', j, j'; i, a, u
[..]


url: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/1998_MALC_TABLE-1.htm

Would be great if you would try to analize some words based on this
assumption (syllabicity, vocalizations) to see if it has sense or not

Marius