On 3/20/2014 6:36 AM, Alex Fink wrote:

> [d] would have even more of a propensity than [t] to develop into [4]
> (after all, [4] is voiced, and it is common for voiced stops to be
> shorter than voiceless too). So the most straightforward mapping of
> the first set would be [d]> [4] (> /d/ or /r/), and then I suppose
> [t]> [t], [t_>]> [d]. In fact, your mapping of the second set
> would most likely pass through this mapping of the first set as an
> intermediate stage.

That makes sense.

> Anyway, with the stop series developing in parallel, either of these
> options with a gap at proto-Tirelat [p_>] would yield a pre-modern
> Tirelat labial series of [p B] (or so), with a gap at [b]. Perhaps
> [B] could develop back to [b], though if [f v] were already present
> it seems much more likely that [v] would ensnare [B] (if it hadn't
> been [w] to start with or whatnot). So it seems easier not to have a
> gap there. Maybe your option of filling it with [b_<] instead is the
> cleanest, since [b_<] doesn't have far to develop to modern [b], and
> its presence in the series could have been the wedge that
> precipitated the development from ejective (through implosive?) to
> voiced in the other PoAs.
>
> Also to consider is what the third member of the stop series that
> yielded [ts) dz)] became. ([z] ?)

It could be.

pʰ p p
ɓ ɓ b
p b w

t̪ʰ t̪ t̪
t̪ʼ t̪ʼ (ɗ̪) d̪
t̪ d̪ d̪ ~ ɾ

tʰ tˢ ʦ
tʼ tʼ (ɗ) ʣ ? (hmm, that doesn't really seem likely)
t d z ?

kʰ k k
kʼ kʼ (ɠ) ɡ
k ɡ ɣ

h h -
ʔ ʔ -

But ... now I'm thinking that maybe the alveolar /d/ is what turned into
/ɾ/ in some dialects, and the dental /d/ turned into /ð/.

Or the affricates could have been derived from palatals. */c/ > /ts/,
*/ɟ/ > /dz/, and the absence of any /cʼ/ or /ʄ/ seems reasonable.

Herman