Why are clicks so rare?

[WeepingElf]

The term labiovelar is conventionally used, especially in Indo-European linguistics, for a labialized velar, which is something entirely different than a labial-velar.

I wouldn’t say ‘entirely different’. There’s a good few cases of them interconverting: Sougb notably writes ⟨gb⟩ for phonetic [gʷ̚], and there’s some Vanuatuan languages which have developed [k͡pʷ] from [kʷ]. I’m sorely tempted to declare that they are the same consonant, at least on a phonemic level — the only language I can find with both is Maʼdi, and its [k͡p] is obviously the phonetic realisation of underlying /pʷ/.

Fair. They can turn into each other, but they are not the same thing, and thus should not be named the same way. Sometimes it makes a big difference whether you mean [kʷ] or [k͡p].

[Richard W]

Sarostin I shall ignore as usual.

FWIW, this is George, not his father.

[Kuchigakatai]

!Xoon seems to have a Kartveloid 'harmonic cluster' rule, so maybe *tk- *kt- > tx- k|-?

Sounds interesting. Do you have any links where I can read more about this? (In either ǃXóõ or Kartvelian.)

McCoy, Priscilla. 1999. "Harmony and Sonority in Georgian". In: Proceedings of the ICPhS XIV [International Congress of Phonetic Sciences]


The first page of this other paper seems to have an exhaustive inventory of the clusters for Georgian:

Butskhrikidze, Marika; van Heuven, Vincent. 2001. "Georgian harmonic clusters as complex segments? A perceptual experiment". In: Linguistics in the Netherlands 2001.

[Nortaneous]

Oorlams reportedly does, but that’s a creole.

Source?

What circumstances were there for Dahalo?

The clicks are preserved from a non-Cushitic substrate.

Haven’t read the paper (link please?), but that last proposal sounds reasonable to me, except I think Tuu–Kxʼa is more likely a Sprachbund than a clade.

I've only found slides, but there may be a paper.

Sarostin I shall ignore as usual.

The notable thing here is that he's declining to posit a genetic relationship based on structural similarities.

[bradrn]

The term labiovelar is conventionally used, especially in Indo-European linguistics, for a labialized velar, which is something entirely different than a labial-velar.

I wouldn’t say ‘entirely different’. There’s a good few cases of them interconverting: Sougb notably writes ⟨gb⟩ for phonetic [gʷ̚], and there’s some Vanuatuan languages which have developed [k͡pʷ] from [kʷ]. I’m sorely tempted to declare that they are the same consonant, at least on a phonemic level — the only language I can find with both is Maʼdi, and its [k͡p] is obviously the phonetic realisation of underlying /pʷ/.

Fair. They can turn into each other, but they are not the same thing, and thus should not be named the same way. Sometimes it makes a big difference whether you mean [kʷ] or [k͡p].

When would it make such a big difference? As I said, they’re practically identical in all respects except phonetic transcription.

Sarostin I shall ignore as usual.

FWIW, this is George, not his father.

Are their views particularly different though?

McCoy, Priscilla. 1999. "Harmony and Sonority in Georgian". In: Proceedings of the ICPhS XIV [International Congress of Phonetic Sciences]


The first page of this other paper seems to have an exhaustive inventory of the clusters for Georgian:

Butskhrikidze, Marika; van Heuven, Vincent. 2001. "Georgian harmonic clusters as complex segments? A perceptual experiment". In: Linguistics in the Netherlands 2001.

Haven’t read the paper (link please?), but that last proposal sounds reasonable to me, except I think Tuu–Kxʼa is more likely a Sprachbund than a clade.

I've only found slides, but there may be a paper.

Thanks!

Oorlams reportedly does, but that’s a creole.

Source?

Only Wikipedia, which is why I said ‘reportedly’.

Sarostin I shall ignore as usual.

The notable thing here is that he's declining to posit a genetic relationship based on structural similarities.

Huh, that is interesting now that you mention it. I suppose I can take this as strong evidence that they really and truly are not related.

[WeepingElf]

I wouldn’t say ‘entirely different’. There’s a good few cases of them interconverting: Sougb notably writes ⟨gb⟩ for phonetic [gʷ̚], and there’s some Vanuatuan languages which have developed [k͡pʷ] from [kʷ]. I’m sorely tempted to declare that they are the same consonant, at least on a phonemic level — the only language I can find with both is Maʼdi, and its [k͡p] is obviously the phonetic realisation of underlying /pʷ/.

Fair. They can turn into each other, but they are not the same thing, and thus should not be named the same way. Sometimes it makes a big difference whether you mean [kʷ] or [k͡p].

When would it make such a big difference? As I said, they’re practically identical in all respects except phonetic transcription.

For instance, when a language changes one into the other. "The labiovelars became labiovelars"?! Doesn't work. Or in a typological survey that includes languages with one and languages with the other.

[bradrn]

Fair. They can turn into each other, but they are not the same thing, and thus should not be named the same way. Sometimes it makes a big difference whether you mean [kʷ] or [k͡p].

When would it make such a big difference? As I said, they’re practically identical in all respects except phonetic transcription.

For instance, when a language changes one into the other. "The labiovelars became labiovelars"?! Doesn't work. Or in a typological survey that includes languages with one and languages with the other.

As I said, terminology does indeed need to be more precise in cases like these where phonetic details become important. My point is that the difference becomes less relevant when phonetic details are not required.

[WeepingElf]

Fair. The term "labiovelar" for "labialized velar" isn't fortunate anyway; after all, "labiodentals" aren't labialized dentals.

[Richard W]

Sarostin I shall ignore as usual.

FWIW, this is George, not his father.

Are their views particularly different though?

He strikes me as more cautious.

[Nortaneous]

FWIW, this is George, not his father.

Are their views particularly different though?

He strikes me as more cautious.

I read one of his Khoisan papers yesterday and it was a lot more sober than I remember him being, but I haven't looked into the details of the proposed cognates / correspondences yet