On 2007-09-22 04:46, Richard Wordingham wrote:
> The contrast is certainly popular in reconstructions. A contrast *kW
> v. *kw is reconstructed for Proto-Lolo-Burmese.
>
> I haven't found any definite examples, but the Ethiopic languages look
> quite promising. Geez and Tigrinya look quite possible for a contrast
> between /kW/ (labiovelar) and cluster /kw/. A phonological difference
> from the clusters, even if there be no minimal pair, is that while
> Tigrinya quinquiliterals are extremely rare (reportedly just one true
> quinquiliteral, namely g-r-n-g-r 'start to form pod (of legume)'),
> roots with two labiovelars are not, e.g. gW-n-kW, kW-r-kW-m, kW-r-kW
> and gW-r-gW.
Almost every language on Earth may boast of a rarity or two. French has
a rounded palatal glide, Czech a trilled fricative, German a labial
affricate, etc.Complex/contour segments seldom contrast with
bisegmental clusters of the same phonetic makeup, but seldom doesn't
mean never. Standard Polish has a contrast between /c^/ (postalveolar
affricate) and /ts^/ (the corresponding cluster), as in <czysta> 'pure,
clean (f.)' vs. <trzysta> '300', and in some accents (including mine)
there's a clear distinction between palatalised consonants like /m'/ and
clusters like /mj/. I have it in <ziemia> 'earth' vs. <chemia> 'chemistry'.
IE correspondence sets leave no doubt about the *k^w : *kW contrast (*kw
is rarer but also supported by a few equations). All the satem groups
differentiate them consistently:
*k^w > Skt. s'v, Av. sp, Arm. s^, Lith. s^v, OCS sv, Alb. s
*kW > Skt., Av., Lith., OCS, Alb. k, Arm. kH (unless palatalised)
Piotr