Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Lim1guam1 La2ti2nam1 fricative series

Expand Messages
  • Anthony
    ... I know the ch, zh, sh ch dr zh str (since there is no Latin sr) shch /shch/
    Message 1 of 6 , Sep 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In romconlang@yahoogroups.com, Adam Walker <carraxan@...> wrote:
      >
      > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Anthony <mamercus88@...> wrote:
      >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In romconlang@yahoogroups.com <romconlang%40yahoogroups.com>, Eric
      > > Christopherson <rakko@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > On Aug 30, 2010, at 10:26 PM, Anthony wrote:
      > > >
      > > > > I've been rethinking the Lim1guam1 La2ti2nam1 series of fricatives.
      > > Here is my current arrangement, presented for your consideration:
      > > > > ch [tS] < ti, te, ki, ke
      > > > > zh [dZ] < di, de, gi, ge
      > > > > sh {S] < si, se
      > > > > q [t_s\] < [s_\t_s\] < str
      > > > > j [d_z\] < dr
      > > > > x [s\] < [t_s\] tr
      > > >
      > > > Are these meant to be the same sounds as in Mandarin? If so, _ch zh sh_
      > > should be retroflexed, and retroflexes are quite likely to arise from
      > > coronal stop+r -- rather than the alveolopalatal series you have coming from
      > > that.
      > > >
      > > > > Which do you like more for the nasal level tone? lim1 or lin1?
      > > >
      > > > Personally I kind of like the -m1 form, because it reminds me of
      > > Portuguese, but apart from Portuguese it's unusual.
      > > >
      > > I prefer the -m1 form, because it reminds me that this is still a romlang
      > > (I might simplify it to -m, since the 1 is implicit; but tone sandhi might
      > > invalidate that consideration).
      > >
      > > It seems to me that a romlang would be more likely to have an
      > > alveolopalatal series and a retroflex series, even if the romanization would
      > > be similar to Mandarin.
      > > So what about this?
      > >
      > > ch, zh, sh - retroflex < str, dr, tr
      > > q, j, x - alveolopalatal < ki, gi, si
      > > c, z, s - coronal < ti, di, sV[-i]
      > >
      >
      > I think you might concider flipping str and tr. It just seems more logical
      > to me. YMMV.
      >
      > Adam
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      I know the ch, zh, sh < str, dr, tr looks weird, but it comes from the following steps.

      tr > ch
      dr > zh
      str (since there is no Latin sr) > shch

      /shch/ doesn't really fit Mandarin-y Chinese phonology, so I had a choice: to combine /shch/ with /ch/, thereby leaving a gap in the /q,j,x/ vs. /ch, zh,(sh)/ contrast, or to initiate a chain shift of /shch/ > /ch/ > /sh/, creating parallel series /q, j, x/ and /ch, zh, sh/. The problem with the chain shift is whether it would drag the other series along with it (/q/ > /x/ > /h/? /c/ > /s/ > /h/?). But then the phonology would look even less like Mandarin! Is a chain shift in only one series (/ch zh shch/) possible? On the other hand, a shift /shch/ > /sh/ would also allow a shift of /st/ > /ss/ > /s/ and /sk/ > /sx/ > /x/, and /sp/ > /sf/ > /f/, thus ridding me of initial consonant clusters.

      Clearly, I need to rethink the GMP for Lim1guam1 La2ti2nam1. Any (more) advice on this matter would be appreciated.
    • Anthony
      Okay, how about this? Step 1 shch, zh, ch - retroflex
      Message 2 of 6 , Sep 5, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Okay, how about this?

        Step 1
        shch, zh, ch - retroflex < str, dr, tr
        q, j, x - alveolopalatal < ki, gi, si
        c, z, s - coronal < ti, di, sV[-i]

        Step 2
        (thanks to Adam for mentioning Tsakonian, where I found this rule!)
        SC > C_h
        shch > chh
        sp > ph
        st > th
        sc > kh

        This gives a voiceless-voiced-voiceless aspirated contrast, which seems more Tibetan than Mandarin, but it is getting closer, and I can keep q/j/x and c/z/s. The ch/zh/chh series is peculiar, but I suppose a putative scholar of this stage of the language would analyze it as mixed system, if q/j/x and c/z/s are Type I and p/b/ph, t/d/th, and k/g/kh are Type II.

        --- In romconlang@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony" <mamercus88@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In romconlang@yahoogroups.com, Adam Walker <carraxan@> wrote:
        > >
        > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Anthony <mamercus88@> wrote:
        > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --- In romconlang@yahoogroups.com <romconlang%40yahoogroups.com>, Eric
        > > > Christopherson <rakko@> wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > On Aug 30, 2010, at 10:26 PM, Anthony wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > > I've been rethinking the Lim1guam1 La2ti2nam1 series of fricatives.
        > > > Here is my current arrangement, presented for your consideration:
        > > > > > ch [tS] < ti, te, ki, ke
        > > > > > zh [dZ] < di, de, gi, ge
        > > > > > sh {S] < si, se
        > > > > > q [t_s\] < [s_\t_s\] < str
        > > > > > j [d_z\] < dr
        > > > > > x [s\] < [t_s\] tr
        > > > >
        > > > > Are these meant to be the same sounds as in Mandarin? If so, _ch zh sh_
        > > > should be retroflexed, and retroflexes are quite likely to arise from
        > > > coronal stop+r -- rather than the alveolopalatal series you have coming from
        > > > that.
        > > > >
        > > > > > Which do you like more for the nasal level tone? lim1 or lin1?
        > > > >
        > > > > Personally I kind of like the -m1 form, because it reminds me of
        > > > Portuguese, but apart from Portuguese it's unusual.
        > > > >
        > > > I prefer the -m1 form, because it reminds me that this is still a romlang
        > > > (I might simplify it to -m, since the 1 is implicit; but tone sandhi might
        > > > invalidate that consideration).
        > > >
        > > > It seems to me that a romlang would be more likely to have an
        > > > alveolopalatal series and a retroflex series, even if the romanization would
        > > > be similar to Mandarin.
        > > > So what about this?
        > > >
        > > > ch, zh, sh - retroflex < str, dr, tr
        > > > q, j, x - alveolopalatal < ki, gi, si
        > > > c, z, s - coronal < ti, di, sV[-i]
        > > >
        > >
        > > I think you might concider flipping str and tr. It just seems more logical
        > > to me. YMMV.
        > >
        > > Adam
        > >
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        > I know the ch, zh, sh < str, dr, tr looks weird, but it comes from the following steps.
        >
        > tr > ch
        > dr > zh
        > str (since there is no Latin sr) > shch
        >
        > /shch/ doesn't really fit Mandarin-y Chinese phonology, so I had a choice: to combine /shch/ with /ch/, thereby leaving a gap in the /q,j,x/ vs. /ch, zh,(sh)/ contrast, or to initiate a chain shift of /shch/ > /ch/ > /sh/, creating parallel series /q, j, x/ and /ch, zh, sh/. The problem with the chain shift is whether it would drag the other series along with it (/q/ > /x/ > /h/? /c/ > /s/ > /h/?). But then the phonology would look even less like Mandarin! Is a chain shift in only one series (/ch zh shch/) possible? On the other hand, a shift /shch/ > /sh/ would also allow a shift of /st/ > /ss/ > /s/ and /sk/ > /sx/ > /x/, and /sp/ > /sf/ > /f/, thus ridding me of initial consonant clusters.
        >
        > Clearly, I need to rethink the GMP for Lim1guam1 La2ti2nam1. Any (more) advice on this matter would be appreciated.
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.