Re: Finnish KASKI

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:37:25 -0000, "jouppe"
<jouppe@...> wrote:

>--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
><miguelc@...> wrote:

>> Yes, but I wonder whether that can be correct, given that
>> the Ugric reflex of PU */s/ is PUgr */þ/. I can buy one
>> unusual development (s > t in Samoyed), but two (s > þ in
>> Ugric) seems a bit too much.
>>

>I sympathise with the gist of your doubt although I am hesitant as to
>the concept of "Proto-Ugric", which is loosing ground as a "valid
>node" ("Proto-Samoyed" is not under question though). If we would
>accept the proposed split of earlier reconstructed Ugric into Proto-
>Vogul and Proto-Ostyak +separate Proto-Hungarian, the more valid your
>doubt would become, as it would presuppose not two but three
>independent unusual sound changes.
>
>As far as I understand (here I do not remember Janhunens or
>Sammalahtis underlying argumentation) a main problem of a
>fricative "thorn" is the economy of distinguishing features in the
>system.
>
>There is already a fricative d in the system and the opposition
>between the thorn and the fricative d would be the only point in the
>system where voicing is the only and minimal distinguishing feature.
>This problem may perhaps be solved by assuming a palatalized /t'/ for
>this set of correspondences?? (my speculation)
>
>Yet in this case there would only be one sibilant left, the
>palatalized one: but nowhere else in the system does a palatalized
>consonant exist without a non-palatalized (less marked?) counterpart.
>May violate universals for phoneme systems?
>
>I see no alternative solution, but may be there is one. I'm not sure
>if one could then look towards the affricate area next, if one is not
>ready to reconstruct */s/. There is already one affricate */c/ = [ts]
>reconstructed so it is a bit crowded in this area already.

My personal speculation would have been */c^/ (and */s'/ can
then be normal */s/). That would give a system with the
following fricatives and affricates:
*s (= *s')
*c
*c^ (= *s)
*d' (perhaps a lateral fricative or affricate)
*x (perhaps *x and *h)

It is interesting to compare Semitic, where traditional
*/t_/ (þ) (Arabic t_, Hebrew s^) is now reinterpreted as
*/c^/, traditional */s/ (Arabic & Hebrew s) as */c/,
traditional */s^/ (Arabic s, Hebrew s^) as */s/, and
traditional */s'/ (Arabic s^, Hebrew s') as a lateral
fricative or affricate (*/L/ and/or */£/).

Another parallel is Romance, where we have /c^/ (It., Rom.),
/c/ (OFr., OCast.), /s/ (Fr.) and /þ/ (Cast.) as reflexes of
palatalized Latin /k/.

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
miguelc@...