CJ phonemes

[Henry Kammler]

> Agreed, languages don't work mathematically (my pet beef [veal?!] with
> Noam Chomsky)

tenas musmus?

> 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/.

Yes, I have thought about that, too. Some of you use glottalized (?)
consonants in Boasian manner (like ts!, k!), at least I take them to be
glottalized consonants. If there is a glottalized stop series (which is likely
for speech communities like GR), this has me wondering whether anglophones not
only heard "ejectives" distinctly but also whether they  were indeed able to
pronounce them distinctly. I think this is one of the factors that contributed
to shaping CJ as it spread.
In Ucluelet on the beautiful West Coast, I came across somebody who had used
his own writing system to put place names down so they might not be forgotten.
With an amazing consistency he represented glottalized consonsonants as voiced
(i.e. t' as d, k' as g, c' as ds) which is very logical for there are no
voiced consonants in his language. But furthermore, unskilled listeners hear
"ejectives" as voiced because glottalization precludes simultaneous
aspiration. In English single voiceless consonants in syllable-initial
position are always aspirated. I noticed that anglophones (native and
nonnative) whom we tried to teach the pronunciation of ejectives tended to
pronounce them as simple voiced consonants (indeed a possible workaround in
the particular language). Thus, what was distinctive for them was the lack of
aspiration, not the glottalization that they did not have a category for.
To cut a long story short. I can imagine that ejectives may have transformed
into simple voiced consonants -- at least regionally -- because of the lack of
such sounds in the mother tongues of many of those who spread the knowledge of
CJ.

Anyway, I'd be pleased to see a glottalized stop series in CJ and ask them
Umatillas (this is a X-reference) if they have ever heard a "white man's
language" that has that.  :-)

> Also:  Henry, you advocate a 'simple' writing system for CJ, for the sake
> of clarity of pronunciation by learners.

Ah, no. I was not clear here. By 'simple' I was referring to a phonemisized
writing system that might be used by those far-away dudes like myself once the
status of allophones and the like is clearer. For learners an orthography
should be used that they feel comfortable with and that gives them all the
clues to reproduce a phonetically correct utterance from the written form. It
would be great, however, if both approaches could meet in the middle. This
would certainly take a lot of experience in teaching CJ already.

> 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!  :-)

Yeah, agreed. As you know, I have stuck my nose into language programs on
Vancouver Island. I must admit that, though the "phonetic" orthography adopted
by the tribal council in question pleases my academic eye, I was not convinced
at all that it might work. Indeed, it works for those who have the opportunity
to put a lot of enthusiasm and time into it -- the learning curve is quite
steep. I don't know if it would be any different with a more "practical"
orthography because the language itself is very demanding. Personally, I
wouldn't have opted for adopting rather embarassing glyphs like "barred
lambda" "barred L" (redundant in a language that lacks voiced L) and so forth
but this is not my decision and kicking up a fuss over the orthography *now*
would be the worst thing to do. Actually, there were language programs in the
past that failed because people (supported by linguists and other university
people) fought over the question of how to write the language. Which is
legitimate but not at the price of letting a language disappear that could
have been saved if measures had been taken when it was necessary.

Apart form that, I hope this does not sound odd, this is also an aesthetic
question. Practical orthographies that were developed for typewriters and are
mostly also suitable for email simply look awful in print. My very own
opinion, I admit.

I hope I haven't bored anybody with this long posting.

Henry