On 2013-02-09 20:20, Herman Miller wrote:
> 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/,

That's not a problem.  Gothenburg Swedish had a
sound change whereby (post)dental and retroflex
consonants merged as alveolars.  The net result
is that it looks like /r/ has disappeared before
/t d n l s/, but since surrounding dialects to
the north and east and the (upper) middle class
dialect in the city have retroflexes there is
no doubt that it's actually loss of retroflexion.
I immigrated from the retroflexing area to the
north and had to learn to turn retroflexion on
and off at will in order to get accepted at school
*and* not annoy my mother![^1] :-)

Another possibility is that retreflexes merged with
(alveo)palatals.  They are quite similar acoustically.

> and where did initial /ɻ/ come from?

When /ɽ/ occurs there usually is another rhotic
beside it.  You can also get /ɻ/ from /ʐ/.
There are even Swedish speakers who have
[ɻ] and [ʐ] for /r/ in free variation.
I have [ɻ], [ɾ] and [r] in free variation.

> /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.

Tolkien used ƕ and ꜧ for labiovelar and palatal voiceless 
I have used ƕ for the coarticulated [x] and voiceless bilabial
approximant which occurs for /x/ hereabouts.


[^1]: It's a curious fact that schoolboys here often
     speak a 'lower' accent than their background would
     suggest, and than what they speak as adults. They
     actually learn an accent at school as part of
     assocializing into school(boy) culture. I wonder
     if this occurs in other places too.