Page 2 of 2
Re: Why are clicks so rare?
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2021 1:13 pm
by WeepingElf
bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 9:48 pm
WeepingElf wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 1:29 pm
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].
Re: Why are clicks so rare?
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2021 3:52 pm
by Richard W
bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 2:34 am
Sarostin I shall ignore as usual.
FWIW, this is George, not his father.
Re: Why are clicks so rare?
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2021 7:09 pm
by Kuchigakatai
bradrn wrote: ↑Sat Jul 31, 2021 8:00 pmNortaneous wrote: ↑Sat Jul 31, 2021 5:01 pm
!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.
Re: Why are clicks so rare?
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2021 7:39 pm
by Nortaneous
bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 2:34 am
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.
Re: Why are clicks so rare?
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2021 9:57 pm
by bradrn
WeepingElf wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 1:13 pm
bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 9:48 pm
WeepingElf wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 1:29 pm
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.
Richard W wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 3:52 pm
bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 2:34 am
Sarostin I shall ignore as usual.
FWIW, this is George, not his father.
Are their views particularly different though?
Nortaneous wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 7:39 pm
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!
Nortaneous wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 7:39 pm
bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 2:34 am
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.
Re: Why are clicks so rare?
Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2021 3:23 am
by WeepingElf
bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 9:57 pm
WeepingElf wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 1:13 pm
bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 9:48 pm
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.
Re: Why are clicks so rare?
Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2021 3:31 am
by bradrn
WeepingElf wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 3:23 am
bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 9:57 pm
WeepingElf wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 1:13 pm
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.
Re: Why are clicks so rare?
Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2021 5:37 am
by WeepingElf
Fair. The term "labiovelar" for "labialized velar" isn't fortunate anyway; after all, "labiodentals" aren't labialized dentals.
Re: Why are clicks so rare?
Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2021 5:07 pm
by Richard W
bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 9:57 pm
Richard W wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 3:52 pm
bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 2:34 am
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.
Re: Why are clicks so rare?
Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2021 5:50 pm
by Nortaneous
Richard W wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 5:07 pm
bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 9:57 pm
Richard W wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 3:52 pm
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