Re: [tied] *kW- "?"

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miguel Carrasquer" <mcv@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 8:21 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] *kW- "?"


> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:04:43 +0200, Grzegorz Jagodzinski
> <grzegorj2000@...> wrote:
>
>>Please analyse (spoken) Arabic facts as well. But "e" is in fact the
>>neutral
>>colour of the "a" vowel. At the same time, both "k" and "g" are
>>palatalized
>>(or: fronted) in Arabic in some degree (classical Arabic pronunciation has
>>the palatoalveolar affricate g^ in the plece of g but the Egyptian dialect
>>still preserves velar g even if slightly palatalized). Arabic does know
>>uvulars (the voiceless stop q, the voiceless spirant X = h with an arch
>>below, and the voiced spirant G = top-dotted g) and those three Arabic
>>uvulars do not cause a-colorizing!
>
> They do. In colloquial Egyptian Arabic, /a/ is [A] (instead
> of [æ]) in the neighbourhood of emphatic /s./, /d./, /z./,
> /t./, and in the neighbourhood of /r/ and /q/ (although /q/
> usually becomes /?/ in the colloquial). The "Classical"
> (high register) pronunciation, at least in Egypt, also
> requires [A] in the neighbourhood of /x/ and /G/.
>
> The pharyngeals /H/ and /¿/ do *not* cause [A]-colouring.

Hmm... According to some books, you may be right... partially.

I know that dialect only for immediate contacts and songs (yes :-)), not
books, and that's why I stated what I stated. It's commonly known that the
Egyptian dialect is not homogeneous.

Anyway, you simplify the thing. There are three, not two, variants of /a/ in
Egyptian Arabic. They are:
a) [æ] before [j], [i] (in the next syllable), but /¿/, /H/ never allow [æ]
but [a] rather
b) [^] in the neighbourhood of /s./, /d./, /z./, /t./, /q/ and
velarized-pharyngealized variants of /l/ and /r/ (not all /r/; not found a
word on /x/, /G/)
c) [a] elsewhere

Kästner in "Phonetik und Phonologie des Modernen Hocharabisch" seems to
explain the thing: uvulars /q/, /x/, /G/ are "gepreßt" = pharyngealized,
emphatic. In the variety I know they are not emphatic evidently.

Anyway, notice that pharyngeals never allow [æ], so they _are_ a-colouring.
/q/ is a special problem, as I see. Really, it may be a-colouring even in
all Arabic dialects but because it is "gepreßt" and because it is uvular.
According to some hypotheses, Semitic q < *k. and *q. (emphatic, earlier
abruptive=ejective). Indeed, some Semitologists use k. instead of q to
emphasize this feature.

The evidence of a-coloring influence of pharyngeals rather than uvulars can
also be found in Arabic grammar. The imperfect form for fa¿ala is yaf¿alu
and not *yaf¿ilu or *yaf¿ulu - just because of the a-coloring influence of
the pharyngeal ¿. And the same about fataHa - yaftaHu. Uvulars do not
influence the root this way, so they are not a-coloring (in this point).

If you are still not convinced, take Classic Hebrew into consideration. In
this language [k_] (the spirant variety of /k/ pronounced after a vowel,
when not geminated) is uvular in fact (Semitologists even contrast uvular
Hebrew [k_] and velar Aramaic [k_]), it is never emphatic (in contrast to
Arabic [x]) and it does not affect neighbouring vowels. But pharyngeal [H]
and [¿] do affect! So, pharyngeal nature or pharyngealization cause the
a-colour but uvular nature itself - does not.

Grzegorz J.



___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com