Print

Print


On 2/9/2013 8:30 AM, BPJ wrote:

> Palatalized [tʲ], [dʲ] are often realized as [tsʲ]ˌ [dzʲ]
> (this is the case in Russian for example) and then can
> become [ts], [dz] (Romance, e.g. Italian where TJ > /ts/
> but CJ > /tʃ/) which then of course can easily become
> [s], [z] (French). In (northern) Spanish they became
> [t̻s̻]ˌ [d̻z̻] > [s̻]ˌ [z̻] > [s̻] > [θ]ˌ all the while remaining
> distinct from [s̺]ˌ [z̺] < S. IIRC you have [ts], [dz] in
> Jarda and this could be one source for them.

It's Tirelat that has /ts/ /dz/ as phonemes. But maybe some Jarda words 
with /s/ followed by a front vowel like "sül" (married couple) might 
have come from an original *t that was palatalized.

*tilu > *tsilu > *tsülu > *tsül > sül

>> One mystery is the origin of the initial clusters /śl/ /śṛ/ /źl/
>> /źṛ/ in Jarda. It's possible that they come from palatalization of
>> *sl, *sṛ, *zl, *zṛ before /i/, but then what happened to *kl, *kṛ,
>> *gl, *gṛ? You don't find /cl/, /cɻ/, /ɟl/, /ɟɻ/ in Jarda.
>
> Maybe */cl/ > /śl/ etc. or else /cl/ etc. merge with
> /tl/ etc. if these exist; cf. English where /tr/, /dr/
> are often [tʃɹ], [dʒɹ] or even [ʈʂ], [ɖʐ]. Chances are
> likely that /c/, /ɟ/ are actually alveopalatal, i.e.
> what Sino-Tibetanists would write as ȶ ȡ! AFMOC
> Sohlob has /ȶɕ/, /ȡʑ/~[ʑ], /ɕ/ and {/ɕt/, /ȶɕt/, /sȶɕ/},
> {/ȡʑd/, /zȡʑ/} are realized as [ɕȶ], [ʑȡ], which I
> transcribe _çt, jd_ -- you will remember that I have
> qualms about word-initial _jd_ in Cidilib. The area
> where Cidilib is spoken is [dɮɒˈfiɕȶir] 'Içtir Mountains'
> BTW, where /dlof/ is the reflex of _*gryafu_.

/tl/ does exist ("tlug" = "neck"); the Zharranh word for "neck" is 
"qolka" with initial /kw/, so it would be interesting if these are 
somehow related. I think maybe the *kl /_i > *cl > /śl/ might work out 
better though.

>> Labialization affected labiodental and velar fricatives, and
>> possibly ṛ /ɻ/. That /ɻ/ is an oddball consonant in Jarda. Maybe
>> Proto-Jardic had a whole series of other retroflex consonants like
>> /ʈ/, /ɖ/, and /ɭ/.
>
> Intervocalic [ʈ]ˌ [ɖ] easily become [ɽ], whence I guess [ɻ] is
> a small step. [ɭ] easily becomes [l] e.g. in Middle IndoAryan,
> and many Swedish speakers who otherwise have /rt/ [ʈ] etc.
> have /rl/ [rl] or [l]. I belong to the [l] camp myself.
> It might be harder to get rid of [ɳ]. In IndoAryan it
> omewhat surprisingly becomes [ɽ̃], though IIRC [n] also
> occurs, so Jardic [ɳ] could conceivably end up as [ɻ]!

It makes sense if an earlier stage of Jarda has [ɽ] between vowels that 
it would change to /ɻ/ when final vowels were lost. The question then is 
what happened to initial /ʈ/ and /ɖ/, and where did initial /ɻ/ come from?

/ɭ/ > /l/ is interesting; that would certainly account for why the /l/ 
in /śl/ and /źl/ didn't get palatalized itself. Maybe the fricatives 
merge with /x/ /ɣ/ if there were any?

> The spontaneous voicing of [ʍ] seems OK but [ç] > [j]
> somehow rubs me the wrong way. I'd rather expect
> [ç] > [h], at least word initially. I'm clearly
> influenced by Sohlob here, though!
>
> /bpj

Here the problem is that we don't have a good way to write a voiceless 
/j/ without making it look like the German "ich" sound. I'm thinking of 
the same kind of change that happened in many dialects of English when 
the "wh" sound was merged with /w/. Carl Sagan's pronunciation of 
"human" as /jumən/ is an example of that change.

I could just arbitrarily write /J/ I guess. ɪ could write /j̥/, but the 
ring under the j might not be apparent depending on your font.