<html><body>
<p><tt>John Koontz wrote:</tt><br>
<tt>> The laminal pronunciation you mention or anything more apical and less<br>
> alveolar are likely.<br>
</tt><br>
<tt>>> I'm confused by what you mean by "apical" here. Do you mean the tip of the<br>
>> palate ahead of the alveolar ridge?<br>
><br>
> Apical refers to the tongue tip.<br>
</tt><br>
<tt>Good, that's what I thought. In that case, my confusion is over the apparent contrast between apical and alveolar.</tt><br>
<br>
<br>
<tt>> The less<br>
> fiddling with the existing "popular" schemes the better, I think. It<br>
> should only be done where it is absolutely necessary.</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>The projects we're working on (textbook and eventually revised dictionary) should be as linguistically well-founded as possible, but since they are intended largely for the Omaha community, the legacy "popular" scheme needs to be treated with respect. That's the balancing act here. It isn't just about the linguists, but their concerns are important, as well as the Omaha community's. That's why I asked the Siouanists for advice.</tt><br>
<br>
<br>
<tt>>> This is fine for the Siouanist list, though I am inclined to favor marking<br>
>> the x as x^, simply to make sure we really intend it to mean the sharp and<br>
>> forceful form. The x has been used for either or both velar fricatives so<br>
>> much in Omaha that I really don't trust anything written with x as<br>
>> necessarily being distinctive.<br>
><br>
> There's some point to that, but by the same logic you should carefully<br>
> write tt vs. tH (or th), and not t vs. tH (or th), and so on. But again<br>
> that tramples on a carefully arranged compromised that appeals strongly to<br>
> Omahas and Poncas. I'm inclined not to mess with it.<br>
</tt><br>
<tt>I do carefully write tt vs. tH, and not t vs. tH. I learned this convention from you years ago, and I've been following it pretty religiously. I'm entirely convinced that any native speaker of English using loose t or x to transcribe Omaha will frequently put down t indifferently for tt or tH, and x indifferently for x^ and g^, and go right on without realizing anything is amiss. If you force yourself to use only the marked form, then you seldom make that kind of mistake. I know I don't have much support for this view at this end, and I don't know how the final copy will go down, but I do feel strongly about this, and I'm inclined to push for unambiguious marking both of the voiceless stops and of the velar fricatives.</tt><br>
<br>
<br>
<tt>>> For Macy, the issue is touchy. They have some investment in the old La<br>
>> Flesche system, and there could be fallout from trying to revise it. With<br>
>> a push, they might accept using gh for the mute form, though that would be<br>
>> painful for the very common 'make'/'do' verb, which would then have to be<br>
>> written gaghe instead of gaxe.<br>
><br>
> But the same logic applies to writing xitha as x^itha.<br>
</tt><br>
<tt>No. In that case, you've still got an x, and people who want to see it that way can simply ignore the diacritic. The actual spelling doesn't have to change. This is just like adding accent marks to Greek, or macrons to Latin, or vowel points to Hebrew. The traditional spelling is still there, nobody who is used to the old scheme is forced to use the diacritics, everything written in the original scheme is still valid, and at the same time we add a convention that preserves known phonological features that the old scheme doesn't distinguish. It starts out as a teaching and reference aid for people learning Omaha as a second language, and it may or may not spread beyond that arena.</tt><br>
<br>
<br>
<tt>> As I recollect it, gaghe is 'to make' and gaxe is 'branch', perhaps only<br>
> in the context of a riverine system.</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>You mean a branch of a river, not the branch of a tree growing by a river, right? :)</tt><br>
<br>
<br>
<tt>> There's a form for 'comb' that is<br>
> somewhat similar that's not coming to me.<br>
</tt><br>
<tt>Would that be gahe' ? (I'm not sure if we ever got the pronunciation of this word pinned down.)</tt><br>
<br>
<tt><br>
> As for bighoN and bixoN, one was something like 'make a farting noise',<br>
> but I'll have to look this pair up. What, you want meanings, too?<br>
</tt><br>
<tt>For elicitation purposes, that would sure help!</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>Rory</tt><br>
</body></html>