Fieldwork and Linguistic Analysis in Indigenous ... - ScholarSpace

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Story of *ȏ in the Cariban Family 113 But even if we were to have incontrovertible phonetic data for all languages, the degree of precision of the descriptions of the modern languages (Kari’nja, Garifuna, Tiríyo) is only marginally relevant to the phonetic value of the proto-vowel. Original values may survive, but they may undergo change as well. In favor of /ë/, there are a number of modern descriptions that place the modern reflex of *ɨ as an unrounded high back vowel, including for Kari’nja (Hoff 1968), Hixkaryana (Derbyshire 1985), and Garifuna (where the unrounded back vowel alternates between high and mid). If the unrounded high vowel were to reconstruct as back rather than central, then by analogy this would make more likely the reconstruction of the unrounded mid vowel as back. But rather than rely solely on numbers, in favor of this position we can add an argument that follows from the phonetic properties that would create a disposition for the mergers with four other vowel phonemes, resulting in its ultimate disappearance. Starting from the unrounded mid back vowel /ë/, all four mergers could come about by the change of just one phonetic feature: lowering produced /a/, raising produced /ɨ/ or /ï/, fronting produced /e/, and rounding produced /o/. To realize the merger with /a/ both vowels presumably are equally suited: lowering will do. For the merger with /ɨ, ï/, both vowels are equally well-suited (assuming parallism between the high and mid unrounded vowels): the central /ə/ would raise to the central /ɨ/ or the back /ë/ would raise to the back /ï/. For the merger with /e/, both vowels need to move in the same direction: forward. Our impression is, however, that fronting of back vowels is a more natural change than fronting of central vowels. For the merger with /o/, the back vowel only has to lose its atypical unroundedness. The central vowel, on the other hand, has both to acquire rounding and to move backwards: a complicated change, and therefore less likely to end up in a disappearance by merger (Labov 1994:327-329). This fact puts *ə at a disadvantage, except in those languages where the merger with /o/ did not happen and instead /ə/ is found. For these languages the other candidate, *ë, needs an extra change from back to central. This change, however, is less complicated than the combined change (backing, rounding) needed to move from ə towards /o/. The simplicity of the four changes, each involving only a single feature, should increase the likelihood that the changes would result in mergers, as did happen—rather than in the emergence of new vowels, as otherwise might have happened. For in another respect the conditions for the preservation of the phonological distinction were favorable: there was ample room in phonetic space for distinctions like /e/ versus /ɛ/, /o/ versus /ɔ/, /a/ versus /ɑ/ (cf. Labov 1994:327-329). So we conclude that *ô certainly was an unrounded mid vowel, more likely back than central. fieldwork and linguistic analysis in indigenous languages of the americas
The Story of *ȏ in the Cariban Family 114 aPPendix 1. Some correspondences for Proto-Cariban *ô *jô) cook *jô bone (*jô tooth bee/ honey about.erg arrow2 flea go high imPer leave moon kill toad seize star snake stone woman σ σ σ σ σ σ σ σ σ σ σ σ σ σ σ σ σ σ σ σ σ σ 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2/3 1 1 2 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 Tiriyó ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə e e e Akuriyó ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə e e Karihona ə ə é ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə e e e Wayana ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə e e e Ye’kwana ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə o e Kari’nja o o ï o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o e e Island Carib oüi Ø e e éu oú um é o Ø é é é e, a (Breton) Island Carib ui Ø ï ï ï u ï ï o Ø ï ï e e, a (Hoff) Garifuna ï ï ï ï Apalaí o o o o o e o o o o o o o ua o o o o e e e Waiwai o o o o Ø o o i o o o Ø o o o o u o o o Hixkaryana o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Katxuyana o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Tamanaku o/a o/e e e e/a e e a e/a eu Ø o e/a a e e e e e Kumana e e e/a e/o e/a eu/o e/o e e/o/a e/o/i o a e e e Yabarana/ ə ə/e é ə ə ə/e ə ə ə ə Ø ə ə ə ə ə ə ə e/ə ə Mapoyo Panare ə Ø ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə a e o ɨ ə ə ə Pemón ə Ø ə ə o Kapong ə Ø ə ə ə Ø ə u ə ə ə Ø/i ə ə ə Ø ə ə Makushi ɨ Ø ɨ ɨ ɨ ɨ ɨ ɨ ɨ e i ɨ ɨ ɨ ɨ ɨ e e Bakairi ə ə ə ə ə ɨ ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə ə e Ø Arara o Ø o a o o o o o o Ø e Ø Ikpéng o Ø o o o Ø o o o o u o Ø o o Ø e Ø Kuhikuru e e e e e e e e e e e e e Ø e i Ø Yukpa o o o o e o o o u u o o o ɨ o Waimiri Atroari fieldwork and linguistic analysis in indigenous languages of the americas ɨ ɨ u ɨ ɨ ɨ e u ɨ ɨ e i o e ɨ e ɨ
Page 2 and 3:
Fieldwork and Linguistic Analysis i
Page 5:
Contents Foreword iii Marianne Mith
Page 8 and 9:
Another fading boundary is that bet
Page 10 and 11:
languages: Akawaio (Kapóng), Akuri
Page 12:
Acknowledgments The editors are dee
Page 15 and 16:
Introduction 2 COMMUNITY COLLABORAT
Page 17 and 18:
Introduction 4 confined themselves
Page 19 and 20:
Introduction 6 Often, what turns ou
Page 21 and 22:
Introduction 8 references boas, fra
Page 23 and 24:
The Discourse Marker vet in Ixil Ma
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
fieldwork and linguistic analysis i
Page 47 and 48:
Classifying Clitics in Sm’algyax
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Noun Class and Number in Kiowa-Tano
Page 73 and 74:
Noun Class and Number in Kiowa-Tano
Page 75 and 76: Noun Class and Number in Kiowa-Tano
Page 103 and 104: fieldwork and linguistic analysis i
Page 105 and 106: The Story of *ȏ in the Cariban Fam
Page 125: The Story of *ȏ in the Cariban Fam
Page 137 and 138: 124 fieldwork and linguistic analys
Page 139 and 140: Zapotec Determiners 126 System of O
Page 141 and 142: Zapotec Determiners 128 and most at
Page 143 and 144: Zapotec Determiners 130 do often oc
Page 145 and 146: Zapotec Determiners 132 The minimal
Page 147 and 148: Zapotec Determiners 134 (14) (MMC,
Page 149 and 150: Zapotec Determiners 136 In the text
Page 151 and 152: Zapotec Determiners 138 b. bɛn gun
Page 153 and 154: Zapotec Determiners 140 rɛ’ɛbi-
Page 155 and 156: Zapotec Determiners 142 (29) (LGL,
Page 157 and 158: Zapotec Determiners 144 APPENDIX: T
Page 159 and 160: 146 fieldwork and linguistic analys
Page 161 and 162: Middles and Reflexives in Yucatec M
Page 177 and 178:
Middles and Reflexives in Yucatec M
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
172 fieldwork and linguistic analys
Page 187 and 188:
Dena’ina Discourse Markers 174 On
Page 189 and 190:
Dena’ina Discourse Markers 176 (4
Page 191 and 192:
Dena’ina Discourse Markers 178
Page 193 and 194:
Dena’ina Discourse Markers 180 5
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Dena’ina Discourse Markers 190 Th
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Dena’ina Discourse Markers 194 Q
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Dena’ina Discourse Markers 198 co
Page 213 and 214:
Dena’ina Discourse Markers 200 RE
Page 215 and 216:
Dena’ina Discourse Markers 202 Pe
Page 217 and 218:
Gemination and Tonal Feet in Welede
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Dependent Verbs in Sierra Popoluca
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
show all

Fieldwork and Linguistic Analysis in Indigenous ... - ScholarSpace

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?