Re[2]: [tied] Re: Fun with prenasalized stops.txt

At 9:11:49 PM on Friday, February 2, 2007, Patrick Ryan
wrote:

> tgpedersen<mailto:tgpedersen@...>

[...]

>> 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/?

> 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