From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 52060
Date: 2008-01-29
----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Can relationships between languages be determined
after 80,000 years?
>
> On 2008-01-29 11:00, fournet.arnaud wrote:
<snip>
Piotr:
> Using the same logic you will probably add clicks a whole array of
> clicks to account for Khoisan and perhaps more places of articulation
> (retroflex, palatal) to accommodate Australian and Dravidian, won't you?
> =============
> No
> I would first try to connect retroflex and palatal with
> tl dl tl?
> and I will not add clicks to the system
> but try to understand what suits best.
> Arnaud
> =========
<snip>
***
In my opinion, clicks are outside the normal phonological systems of the
world, meaning they have no correspondents with non-clicks in any other
language family.
They are an African innovation that served the purpose of differentiating
various meanings of words with affixation of non-click consonants and
vowels.
I must a little study of clicks (Schnalzlaute) before I wrote
http://geocities.com/proto-language/c-NAMA-14.htm
http://geocities.com/proto-language/c-NAMA-14_table.htm
The notation for them is quite misleading as to their phonological natures.
Cluck your tongue in disapproval and try to relate that to a phone.
Patrick