[Lingtyp] [ɸ] - [h]

Wed May 24 15:52:36 UTC 2023

Hi Larry,

thanks for the suggestion. However, unless memory fails me, all back 
vowels are [+ grave]. So we appear to need [+high] in addition.

I do consider the alternative of an initial [ɸ] going to [h] except 
before a high back vowel. Apart from the problem that diachronic 
evidence will be hard to come by in the case of Cabecar, we would then 
face a typological problem, viz. of a (proto-)language whose fricatives 
are [s], [ʃ] and [ɸ], without an [h]. Again, a clash with Roman Jakobson.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Am 24.05.2023 um 17:30 schrieb Larry M. HYMAN:
> Hello Christian, and everyone. I have been enjoying this exchange. Two 
> quick observations. First, labials and back vowels share the 
> Jakobsonian acoustic feature [+grave] which has appeared now and then 
> in the phonological literature,
> particularly in the 1970s. Of course if your /h/ varies with [x], as 
> you said, then it already would be [+grave]. The question I have is 
> whether it's possible that the original consonant was a labial 
> fricative, and the two [+high, +back]
> vowels shield it from debuccalization? Any voiceless fricative can 
> become [h], of course. Best, Larry
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 8:06 AM Christian Lehmann 
> <christian.lehmann at uni-erfurt.de> wrote:
>
>     Dear Jérémy and everybody,
>
>     you are drawing attention to the fact that, no matter whether we
>     call the feature [labial] or [rounded], it is shared by /u/ and
>     /o/. This calls into question the initial assumption:
>
>     No labiality or roundedness feature is responsible for [h]
>     becoming [ɸ] before [u]/[ɯ]. What seems to count, instead, is
>     [+high, +back]. However, [ɸ] does not share [+back] with these
>     vowels, and shares [+high] with front vowels, too.
>
>     Your solution is that [+high, +back] increases the value of
>     [labial] to [++ labial]. (For both [u] and [ɯ]?)
>
>     An alternative approach would be to doubt that [h] -> [ɸ] / __
>     [u]/[ɯ] is at all a process of assimilation. But what is it then?
>
>     Cheers,
>
>     Christian
>
>     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     Am 24.05.2023 um 16:35 schrieb PASQUEREAU Jeremy:
>>     Dear Christian,
>>
>>     I saw your message on LingTyp and, if I understood the issue
>>     correctly, it seems to me you may be facing a similar problem as
>>     the one I faced a few years ago when describing the phonology of
>>     Karata (Nakh-Daghestanian): there’s a phonological rule (C
>>     labialization in Karata) that occurs in the context of some
>>     rounded vowels (/u/) but not others (/o/). How to discriminate
>>     between /u/ and /o/ given that they are both [+round] (or
>>     [labial] if using privative features)? I wrote a paper
>>     <https://muse.jhu.edu/article/712106> on this where I make the
>>     proposal that in at least some languages the labial feature is
>>     scalar and therefore phonological rules can make reference to one
>>     and not other labial features. Regardless of the analytical
>>     innovation I proposed, you may find the paper useful in that it
>>     discusses the range of phonetic (articulatory, perceptual) and
>>     phonological evidence in favor of distinguishing different
>>     degrees of rounding and it also discusses other phonological
>>     phenomena that the proposal can be brought to bear on.
>>
>>     Best regards,
>>
>>     *Jérémy Pasquereau*
>>     chargé de recherche — https://jeremy-pasquereau.jimdo.com/
>>     <https://jeremy-pasquereau.jimdo.com/>
>>     Laboratoire de Linguistique de Nantes (LLING) UMR 6310, CNRS &
>>     Nantes Université — https://lling.univ-nantes.fr/
>>     <https://lling.univ-nantes.fr/>
>>
>>
>>>     Le 23 mai 2023 à 14:40, Christian Lehmann
>>>     <christian.lehmann at uni-erfurt.de>
>>>     <mailto:christian.lehmann at uni-erfurt.de> a écrit :
>>>
>>>     Dear Miren and everybody,
>>>
>>>     I find this problem interesting. Nowadays everybody appears to
>>>     agree that syntactic and morphological classes are essentially
>>>     distribution classes although the elements in question have
>>>     meaning. In the same spirit, the distributionalists conceived of
>>>     the phoneme in terms of the distribution of phones although
>>>     these have physical properties. And the basic phonological
>>>     features like [consonantal] and [syllabic] essentially relate to
>>>     the distribution of segments in phonotactic patterns. Questions
>>>     such as whether [ts] consists of two segments /ts/ or is one
>>>     affricate /ʦ/ are not solvable by phonetics (to the best of my
>>>     knowledge), but are resolved by analyzing the distribution of
>>>     this element. Again, it is true that distribution alone leads to
>>>     unsatisfactory classes. The complementary distribution of [h]
>>>     and [ŋ] in several languages including English is one such
>>>     example. Apparently a distribution class counts as a natural
>>>     class only if it has a phonetic motivation.
>>>
>>>     My impression is that a full phonological description works with
>>>     a heterogeneous set of features: It does not abide by purely
>>>     distributional phonological features, but  also needs features
>>>     which are essentially phonetic and have no direct relation to
>>>     the distribution of the segments characterized by them. This may
>>>     concern, in particular, features involved in processes of
>>>     assimilation. If a consonant assimilates to an adjacent vowel,
>>>     it means they share a feature despite their appurtenance to
>>>     distinct distribution classes.
>>>
>>>     Net result for my initial question: Assuming that I want a rule
>>>     that assimilates a fricative to a following [u], producing [ɸ],
>>>     I will have to accept an articulatory feature like [labial] in
>>>     my phonology. Does this correspond to the state of the art in
>>>     phonology?
>>>
>>>     Christian
>>>
>>>     -- 
>>>
>>>     Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
>>>     Rudolfstr. 4
>>>     99092 Erfurt
>>>     Deutschland
>>>
>>>     Tel.: 	+49/361/2113417
>>>     E-Post: 	christianw_lehmann at arcor.de
>>>     Web: 	https://www.christianlehmann.eu
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     Lingtyp mailing list
>>>     Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>>>     https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>>
>     -- 
>
>     Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
>     Rudolfstr. 4
>     99092 Erfurt
>     Deutschland
>
>     Tel.: 	+49/361/2113417
>     E-Post: 	christianw_lehmann at arcor.de
>     Web: 	https://www.christianlehmann.eu
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Lingtyp mailing list
>     Lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org
>     https://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp
>
>
>
> -- 
> Larry M. Hyman, Distinguished Professor of the Graduate School
> & Director, France-Berkeley Fund, University of California, Berkeley
> https://linguistics.berkeley.edu/~hyman
-- 

Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
Rudolfstr. 4
99092 Erfurt
Deutschland

Tel.: 	+49/361/2113417
E-Post: 	christianw_lehmann at arcor.de
Web: 	https://www.christianlehmann.eu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20230524/baafe9c7/attachment-0001.htm>