From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 52121
Date: 2008-01-30
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Wordingham" <richard@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 4:06 PM
Subject: [tied] Original Nature of Emphatics (was: IS PIE * DERU EXCLUSIVELY
INDO-EUROPEAN ?)
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
> > There is no reason to assume that the Ethiopian articulation is
original.
> > Patrick
> > =========
> > Most experts in this field believe so.
> > And I agree with these experts.
> >
> > The main obvious reason is :
> > Glottalized can become emphatic, not the reverse.
> > And glottalized can be become voiced,
> > the reverse is rarer but possible.
> >
> > Arnaud
> > =========
> That is a straw man.
> Start with retroflex articulation. Retroflex can be glottalized and
> later voiced --- or not.
What is a retroflex non-coronal consonant?
***
I would not be surprised if someone somewhere retroflexes a non-coronal (I
prefer non-apical) consonant but I do not know of any. I think it is obvious
that apicals lend themselves nost easily to retroflexion which I feel is
probabky due to the backward move of the tongue which accompanies back and
particularly rounded back vowels.
This has nothing much to go with labials, for instance. There,
glottalization or not is independent of retroflexion (I suppose one could
quibble about implosives).
***
Bomhard has a nice assembly of evidence for glottalisation being more
primitive in 'Reconstructing Proto-Nostratic: Comparative Phonology,
Morphology and Vocabulary', which he was distributing last year. Have
you read it?
***
No, I have not. I have some older books by him that have served me pretty
well.
But I actually agree with him. I believe it likely that in the stop series,
the earlier contrast was *C? and *Ch.
Retroflexion I consider to be something developed principally in
Proto-Semitic, and quite possibly through contact with Elamo-Dravidians who
once ranged further.
I do not subscribe to the idea that retroflexion was a feature of the
earliest sound system.
***
Just looking at the cognates (I trust) in extant languages we have:
1. Neo-Aramaic dialects have glottalised consonants.
2. South Arabian languages have glottalised consonants
3. Ethipoian Semitic languages (I presume he excludes Arabic!) have
glottalised consonants
4. Berber languages have pharyngealisation, as in Arabic
5. Chadic has a mixture of implosive and ejective consonants - the
pattern being implosive at the front and ejective at the back
6. Cushitic and Omotic show a similar picture to Chadic, though a few
languages have retroflex coronals.
A post-velar consonant often appears for the emphatic velar.
Historically, we can denote dissimilation of emphatics, as in Geers'
Law in Akkadian. This speaks for ejectiveness. Does not
pharyngealisation tend to be associated with spreading, rather than
with disassociation? (I gather that pharyngealisation is a word
rather then consonant property in some dialects of Arabic.)
Is there any reason why pharyngealised labials should be rare?
***
Yes, actually, I believe there is. I think muscular control of the section
is unevenly distributed. I have always been able to imitate foreign sounds
quite well. I think my ¿ain is quite respectable but I have never been able
to master h. with any spontaneity.
Glottalization may should similar patterns. It is obviously that most
Germanic speakers can make the sound but Romance liaison shows it is felt to
be unnatural or difficult for them.
Patrick
***