From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 52063
Date: 2008-01-29
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
To: "Cybalist" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Can relationships between languages be determined
after 80,000 years?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- 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.
CORRECTION: Sorry, I meant to write "without affixation og non-click
consonants" below. It does not make much sense with "with".
PCR
>
> 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
>