k' > ts > c-hachek order of changes?

[Richard F.Strand]

     As the author of the "mention" in ECOLING's query,

>The following mention got my attention:

>>          k'  >  c  >  ts
>>          g'  >   j  >  dz

>I have come to suspect / believe / almost to argue evidence
>that the normal development is rather the reverse, phonetically,
>that we more commonly have (universally?)

>k' > ts > c-hachek
>g' > dz > j-hachek

I can only refer him to the reference
(http://users.sedona.net/~strand/Nuristani/nuristanis.html) on my original
posting on this list on 2/3/2000.   The "mentioned" sequence is found in the
Iranian and Nuristani languages, as well as in several Indo-Aryan languages.
The processual sequence is Fronting (k > k' > c [c = lamino-alveolar
affricate]) followed by "Prognathizing" (jutting out the jaw while keeping
the tongue's apex pressed behind the lower teeth, which moves the tongue's
blade against the upper teeth).  This sequence is inferred in proto-Iranian
and is clearly attested in the Nuristani languages (e.g., Kamviri *dekm >
*daca > *datsa > *dats > *dots > duts 'ten') and twice in Pashto (e.g.,
*deKm > *daca > *datsa > *dasa > las, 'ten', and *kwetu(e)r- > *catuar >
tsalor > [Northeastern dialects] salor 'four'). The sequence may proceed to
Obstruent Laxing (ts > s, dz > z), as in Eastern Iranian, contemporary
Pashto dialects, and the Nuristani language ASkuNu, or to Strengthened
Prognathizing (ts > th, dz > d), as in Old Persian.   To my knowledge
nowhere in the region is the reverse sequence "k' > ts > c-hachek" attested.

     As for the assertion

>because the /ts,dz/ require more effort,
>reflect better their origin as a *fronted* tongue-body production,
>with the flat front of the tongue rather than the back contacting
>the roof of the mouth,
>whereas the grooved <c-hachek, j-hachek> are more relaxed,
>with less fronting or raising of the heavy body of the tongue,
>but still an affricated acoustic effect,
>so presumably a later substitute for /ts,dz/

there is no a priori reason why this should be so, and in fact in the
Indo-Iranian frontier region it is just the opposite.  Once you are speaking
with a prognathized jaw, who is to say that /ts, dz/ require "more effort"
than /c, j/?  And there is nothing about this process that implies that the
latter sounds must be a "later substitute" for the former.  Any "effort"
that occurs goes into the prognathizing that produces /ts, dz/; it has its
origins in the belligerent facial posture as seen today in the generally
hostile tribal environment of the Afghan-Nuristani ethnic divide.

Regarding

>The theta <th> is also I believe often a reflex of earlier /ts/
>rather than only via /ts/ > /s/ > "th".

this is exactly what my original post said in reference to the /th/ (read
"theta") of Old Persian.

          Richard Strand

          Richard Strand's Nuristan Site
          http://users.sedona.net/~strand