proto-southwestern-tai revised: a new reconstruction - seals 22

Proto-Southwestern Thai 131
Figure 1: Tonal development of the Shan dialect of Muong Khawn (modified from
Chamberlain 1975)
*A *B *C *DS *DL
1 vcl. aspirated
*f-, hm-, ph-,…
5 2 3 5 2
plain vcl.
*p-,…
glottalized vd.
*ʔb-,…
1
2 plain voiced
*v-, m-, b-,…
4 1 1
Unlike the quantity contrast among high vowels, the issue of length in mid and low
vowels is more problematic. Li (1977) and Sarawit (1973) reconstruct long low vowels *ɛː
and *ɔː, contrasting with short mid vowel *e and *o respectively. Jonsson (1991),
similarly, reconstructs both mid and low vowels without length contrast. She also argues
that the mid vowels might have developed from the short allophone of *ɛ and *ɔ. However,
Luo (1997: 57-63) argues that low vowels in SWT dialects are results of e-lowering.
Although he addresses the issue of the PT vowel system, he argues that ɛ in individual
SWT dialects is secondary.
Luo’s (1997) analysis is methodologically problematic because different kinds of
lowering from various modern dialects are lumped together without working out the
development in individual varieties. For example, he shows that several items in Dehong
and Tai Lue that show ɛ have a in Thai and thus assumes that this is evidence for the
secondary nature of low vowels. That this particular set of ɛ in this dialect of Lue is
secondary does not provide evidence for or against the reconstruction of PSWT low
vowels. Interestingly, he does not provides Lue forms that corresponds to Thai and Lao ɛː
and ɔː. If all ɛ and ɔ were really secondary, it would be likely that PSWT *ɛː and *ɔː may
have merged with *e and *o respectively. He also provides other cases of neutralization
and lowering but none of them have been analysed both from the comparative perspective
or from that of internal developments within individual languages.
Evidence from modern dialects, though not robust, shows that two PSWT non-high
vowels must be reconstructed in each of the front and back vowel series. The first piece of
evidence is that the distributional relationship between Li’s *e ~*ɛː and *o~*ɔː are like that
of *i~*iː and *u~*uː— almost in complementary distribution but unpredictable. Note the
minimal pairs ‘duck’ vs. ‘eight’ and ‘bird’ vs. ‘outside’. Secondly, some varieties, such as
TL and TY, do not have a quantity contrast in non-high vowels but do have different tonal
reflexes for etyma that correspond to Thai and Lao short mid vowels, on one hand, and for
those that correspond to Thai and Lao long low vowel on the other. This suggests that there
were contrasts between short and long non-high vowels at an earlier stage. Lastly, in
languages like WT, Aiton, TY, and Yong where raising from *e and *o to i and u
respectively occurred, etyma that correspond to Thai and Lao low vowels did not
participate in the change, suggesting that at an earlier stage the two non-high phonemes
may have been of different heights.