tlahtoa / saltillo

[Galen Brokaw]

Joost,
I think you have to distinguish here between dialects. If I understand John
correctly, your description is accurate for the Huastecan dialect. But there
are dialects in which the original saltillo is now an [h] both at the end of
the word and before consonants. In these dialects, the glottal stop has
disappeared as a phoneme, although it still appears after word final vowels.
Galen

> as for nahuatl, the case seems to be the following. (in this, i base
> myself on the discussion on this list, as i have no first-hand
> information.) there is an underlying phoneme, call it saltillo, that has
> at least two allophones: as [h] in word-final position and between
> vowels, and as a glottal stop (perhaps accompanied by aspiration) before
> a consonant. if i'm not mistaken, (but i get all my information trough
> the web, so for what it's worth:) it is even a velar fricative (close to
> spanish j) in some dialects. the question what the underlying phoneme
> is, cannot be answered easily. (from what i've read on the list so far,
> i would argue it is probably /h/, not a glottal stop, but this is not a
> critical question.)
>
> apart from this, there is apparently a rule that inserts a glottal stop
> after a word-final vowel. this glottal stop is not part of the phonemic
> string that underlies a word, it is inserted afterwards. it is
> comparable to the rule that inserts a glottal stop before word-initial
> vowels in german (and other languages, e.g., dutch). i.e., it is not a
> phonemic, but a phonological phenomenon.
>
> so we have:
>
> tlahtoah: underlyingly /Lahtoah/ (i'll just use L to indicate the
> lateral plosive, for want of a better way...). allophone assignment
> makes the first /h/ a /?/, and the second a /h/. no further rules apply,
> so we get [La?toah].
>
> tlahtoa: underlyingly /Lahtoa/. allophone assignment makes the /h/ a
> /?/. after that, another rule, say 'post-glottalization', adds a /?/.
> so, the word comes out as [La?toa?].
>
> note that native speakers of a language are usually aware of the
> presence of phonemes, (although they may not recognize the allophones),
> but they are not aware of the inserted elements. for example, a speaker
> of spanish recognizes the presence of a phoneme /b/ in 'mover' (he will
> say the word consists of the sounds m, o, b (or v), e and r). but a
> speaker of (british) english will not be aware that there is a glottal
> stop in his pronunciation of 'dent'. that means that if the descriptions
> given in this list of actual speech from native speakers is correct,
> they should consider plural quicuah as containing one more sound than
> singular quicua.
>
> here ends my lecture :-) as i said, the conclusion reached in the
> discussion is quite correct. i just added my bit to explain how
> phonologists would probably look at the matter.
>
> Joost Kremers
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Joost Kremers
>
> University of Nijmegen - The Netherlands
> Department of Languages and Cultures of the Middle East
> POBox 9103
> 6501 HD Nijmegen - The Netherlands
> phone: +31 24 3608226
>
> Galen Brokaw wrote:
> > =
>
> > John,
> > You are right. I think my last email crossed with yours in cyberspace. =
> In the
> > dialects we are discussing, the glottal stop is not a phoneme. But the =
> closing
> > off of the throat is a nonphonemic glottal stop which occurs at the end=
>  of vowel
> > final words. I think that was the original issue that Fran's post raise=
> d in my
> > mind. So, if I may sum up here just to see if we are all on the same pa=
> ge. And
> > please Fran, Mary, John, et al please correct me if I'm wrong:
> > 1. The saltillo was a glottal stop in Classical (I know that from what =
> John has
> > said he may disagree with this)
> > 2. In many (most?) modern dialects the glottal stop evolved into an asp=
> iration
> > /h/
> > 3. In these dialects the glottal stop is no longer a phoneme but exists=
>  as a
> > phonetic characteristic of world final vowels.
> > 4. In these modern dialects, the indicative singular verbs end with thi=
> s
> > nonphonemic glottal stop
> > 5. In Classical, the indicative plural verbs ended with a glottal stop,=
>  which
> > was referred to as a saltillo (see #1)
> > 6. In these modern dialects, the Classical saltillo of the indicative p=
> lural
> > verbs has evolved into an aspiration /h/ (see #2 and #5).
> > 7. Most linguists continue to refer to the modern /h/ as a saltillo/glo=
> ttal stop
> > for historical reasons even though phonetically it is not.
> > =
>
> > I do have one question for those who may know. Are there differences of=
>  opinion
> > among linguists about what the saltillo was phonetically in Classical N=
> ahuatl?
> > Also, I should say that although this discussion may seem pedantic to m=
> any, it
> > has been very informative for me and I appreciate the dialogue with Joh=
> n,
> > Michael, and Mary.
> > Galen
> > =
>
> > John Sullivan Hendricks wrote:
> > =
>
> > > Galen,
> > > I'm sorry for the lack of precision with my terminology, but I'm not =
> a
> > > linguist and the last course I took in linguistics was about 20 years=
>  ago.
> > > However, my lay description of the phoneme/allophone distinction was
> > > correct, although we disagree on its applicability in this case.  Mov=
> ing
> > > along, when I wrote, "The pronunciation of the vowel which ends the s=
> ingular
> > > form, terminates with a closing off of the throat.  But this is true =
> of all
> > > word final vowels," what I should have said was, "this is true of all=
>  word
> > > final vowels in Nahuatl."  I never meant to refer to "all languages. =
>  With
> > > this said, I agree with Mary's suggestion that the closing off of the=
>  throat
> > > after word final vowels in Nahuatl MIGHT only mark the absence of the=
>
> > > saltillo. Don't you think it's a bit suspect that the only criterion =
> for
> > > distinction between the two phonemes you postulate (glottal stop and
> > > aspiration) is in the case of singular vs. plural?  O are you aware o=
> f any
> > > word-internal distinctive pairs which contrast the glottal stop and t=
> he
> > > aspiration?
> > >         John Sullivan
> > >         Universidad Aut=F3noma de Zacatecas
> > >
> > > -----Mensaje original-----
> > > De: owner-nahuat-l at server2.umt.edu [mailto:owner-nahuat-l at server2.umt=
> =2Eedu]En
> > > nombre de Mary Clayton
> > > Enviado el: Jueves, 10 de Febrero de 2000 01:57 p.m.
> > > Para: Multiple recipients of list
> > > Asunto: RE: tlahtoa / saltillo
> > >
> > > Galen,
> > >      I think you've given an admirable account of the concept of
> > > phonemes and allophones. I think that the 'disagreement' here may act=
> ually
> > > involve an unstated assumption, which doesn't directly involve 'fact'=
> , but
> > > (as is usual in linguistics at all levels of analysis -- even phoneti=
> cs)
> > > *interpretation* of fact.
> > >      I think that the question that one would need to ask is: Is ther=
> e any
> > > *third* way for words to end [that don't end in other consonants, of
> > > course]? That is, do the h and the glottal stop form a three-way cont=
> rast
> > > with a simple final vowel which is followed by NEITHER of these? Beca=
> use a
> > > (not unreasonable) linguistic assumption might be that one of these i=
> s
> > > distinctive (as are other consonants) while the other just marks its
> > > absence, that is, just draws special attention to the fact that the w=
> ord
> > > in question ends in a vowel rather than glottal stop (or h, depending=
>  on
> > > which way you want to argue). Seen this way, the question would be: C=
> an
> > > words end in
> > >       -h,
> > >       -? ( =3D glottal stop)
> > >       -C ( =3D any consonant other than glottal stop)
> > >       or -V (=3D any vowel)?
> > >
> > > Or are the choices just
> > >       -h and -V as "allophones"
> > >       -?
> > >       -C
> > >
> > > or    -? and -V as "allophones"
> > >       -h
> > >       -C
> > >
> > >      Most people take a historical position on this question, calling=
>  the
> > > [historical] glottal stop a 'glottal stop' or 'saltillo' regardless o=
> f
> > > whether it is pronounced as [h] or [?] in the dialect in question.
> > > Whichever the pronunciation, this segment shows up in the morphologic=
> ally
> > > expected places, which is one reason to keep the name the same even
> > > thought the pronunciation of presnest-day dialects may differ.
> > >      A way to 'explain' the modern distribution of sounds for those
> > > dialects which have  *real* glottal stops in the singular is that
> > > the *historical* glottal stop has > [h], and the *new* glottal stop j=
> ust
> > > signals its absence. Taken too literally, this sounds like double-tal=
> k, of
> > > course: [?] =3D nothing and [h] =3D glottal stop, but it's a natural =
> way of
> > > thinking for people who work with both classical and modern.
> > >
> > >      Let me mention two personal observations which are relevant to t=
> he
> > > issue, and certainly don't make it any simpler:
> > >
> > >      -- One of Joe's young friends (from Oapan) who is heavily
> > > Nahuatl-dominant, when speaking Spanish very frequently ends vowel-fi=
> nal
> > > words with a glottal stop. Spanish "si/" is [si?] and "no" is [no?]. =
> I
> > > don't think he's exceptional. He's just the one I've heard the most (=
> on
> > > tape -- his tapes frequently accompany us on car trips.)
> > >
> > >      -- There is a characteristic of general Mexican Spanish which ma=
> y
> > > play a part in the confusion. I'm talking about Mexican speakers who =
> know
> > > no Nahuatl, many of whom have probably had little or no exposure to i=
> t. My
> > > Caribbean-hearing ear (I'm from Tampa and grew up around Cuban-type
> > > Spanish) hears enough trailing-off of voice at the end of vowel-final=
>
> > > words in Mexican Spanish to qualify them for -s final words in Cuban.=
>
> > > That is to say, many pronunciations of singular nouns would be heard =
> as
> > > plurals by people who turn s > h, and third-singular verbs sound like=
>
> > > tu-forms.  But Mexicans don't *mean* or *intend* this 'aspiration', i=
> t's
> > > just the way they frequently pronounce vowels in final positions.
> > >      This may well influence the way 'outsiders' who are very familia=
> r
> > > with Mexican Spanish, whether native spekers or not, perceive final v=
> owels
> > > or final -h's in Nahuatl. I'll stop short of speculating what effect =
> it
> > > may have on Nahuatl speakers.
> > >
> > > Mary
> > >
> > > On Thu, 10 Feb 2000 brokawg at mail.lafayette.edu wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > John,
> > > > I have to respectfully disagree. The linguistic terms you refer to =
> are
> > > > phoneme and allophone. The phoneme is the phonetic element which ma=
> y have
> > > > various allophones depending on the environment. In Spanish, for ex=
> ample,
> > > > the phoneme /n/ is pronounced one way when it is intervocalic and a=
> nother
> > > > when it is followed by a [g] or [c] and another when followed by [t=
> ], etc.
> > > > The way you determine whether or not two sounds are separate phonem=
> es or
> > > > allophones of the same phoneme is to try and find two different wor=
> ds that
> > > > are exactly the same except for the two sounds in question. If two =
> such
> > > > words exist, then the sounds are separate phonemes. I don't have en=
> ough
> > > > experience to be able to make judgments about all modern dialects o=
> f
> > > > Nahuatl, but my impression is that the aspiration and the glottal s=
> top are
> > > > two separate phonemes. I would support this by providing a contrast=
> ive
> > > > pair of words consisting of the singular and plural of the indicati=
> ve.
> > > > Now, John, I know that you disagree that the singular ending of the=
>
> > > > indicative is a glottal stop. It is tough to argue these kind of th=
> ings
> > > > over email without the benefit of speech, and you have more access =
> to
> > > > native informants than I do, but I still think that what you descri=
> be as a
> > > > closing off of the throat is a glottal stop. And I disagree that al=
> l words
> > > > in any language must end by closing off the throat. In English when=
>  we
> > > > pronounce a word that ends in a vowel, we don't close off the throa=
> t at
> > > > the end. The word "go" for example doesn't end by abruptly interrup=
> ting
> > > > the vibration of the vocal chords by closing off the throat. The vo=
> cal
> > > > chords just quit vibrating and we cease to expel air. Glottal stop =
> is
> > > > defined precisely as a closing off of the throat using the glottis =
> and
> > > > consequently an abrupt stopping of vocal chord vibration. The nativ=
> e
> > > > speaker with whom I have had experience had a very clear glottal st=
> op at
> > > > the end of verbs in the indicative singular. The difficulty I had w=
> as in
> > > > determining if there was an aspiration at the end of the plural or =
> not. I
> > > > like to think there was a faint aspiration just as you have noted i=
> n the
> > > > speech of Huastecan Nahuatl. So, if this is the case, then we have =
> a
> > > > contrastive pair in the third person singular and third person plur=
> al
> > > > indicative verbs such as quicua [kwa?] and quicuah [kwah] where the=
>
> > > > [?]=3D3Dglottal stop. (The phonetic symbol is actually an upside do=
> wn
> > > questio=3D
> > > > n
> > > > mark with no dot, but I can't make that go through on the email.) I=
>
> > > > conclude therefore that the glottal stop and the aspiration are two=
>
> > > > separate phonemes.
> > > > I submit this argument humbly and ask any of the professional lingu=
> ists to
> > > > correct my reasoning if it is flawed.
> > > > Galen=3D20