CJ phonemes 2

[David Robertson]

LaXaEm, na-shiks Henry,

you'd "...predict a phonemic opposition of voiced / voiceless for CJ..."
as would I.

Agreed, languages don't work mathematically (my pet beef [veal?!] with
Noam Chomsky), but pragmatically ... and it's most likely that
the folks who spoke CJ the most, and in pidgin logic had therefore the
most influence thereupon, made the voicing distinction habitually.

I'd add for the benefit of those who are keeping score:  "...and a
distinction of these with glottalized i.e. ejective counterparts."  (Let's
leave the strange big word 'homorganic' on the sidelines for now.)

So in the 'stops' series of consonants, a 3-way distinction, and I seem to
recall not a few researchers supposing that non-Indians could indeed hear
the ejective consonants distinctly in CJ, though they may have been at a
loss as to how to represent said sounds in writing.  The famous example,
if there are famous examples in CJ, is <tzum> where <tz> is consistently
used to represent ejective /c'/ -- versus let's say <tseepee> where <ts>
consistently represents nonejective /c/.

A small point.

Also:  Henry, you advocate a 'simple' writing system for CJ, for the sake
of clarity of pronunciation by learners.  I assume that you mainly mean a
'logical' writing system?  Certainly the Anglophone-influenced writing
system of the mass of contemporary accounts of CJ was not very logical.
Contortedly so, at best, say I.  But I'll also be the first volunteer to
say that using the Americanist Phonetic alphabet ain't necessarily the
'simplest' way to write CJ!  :-)

Best,
Dave



 *VISIT the archives of the CHINOOK jargon and the SALISHAN & neighboring*
		    <=== languages lists, on the Web! ===>
	   http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/salishan.html
	   http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/chinook.html