iberiul-kavkasiuri enaTmecniereba XXXIX

116
r. lolua
feature of prosody and is spread in all word. According to S. Kodzasov's viewpoint, a
pharyngealization pick comes on the first syllable (i. e. vowel), but if in a word there is
a hushing, uvular and pharyngeal consonant, then maximum of pharyngealization
comes on it.
According to my observation, this viewpoint should be shared. Specialists' recordings
speak about the fact, that in Udi pharyngealization comes on whole word: a
number of the lexemes with two-and more syllables, where according to researchers'
viewpoint, all vowels occur as pharyngealized, is large. The cases often occur, when
pharyngeal vowels are marked in such word-forming elements and affixes, in which,
separately, there is a simple vowel. It should be noted, that according to researchers'
recordings, in Udi pharyngealized vowels are not attested in affixes (as it was mentioned
there are alternation of simple and pharyngealized vowels). It is natural, that this
does not speak in favor of phonemity of pharyngealized vowels. The mentioned situation
should be caused by the fact, that in Udi in a word the maximum of pharyngealization,
as it was mentioned, comes on an initial vowel, or initial pharyngeal, uvular or
hushing consonant and prefixation is almost broken.
Alternation of pharyngealized and non-pharyngealized graphical variants in affixes
points to the fact, that in Udi pharyngealization is a feature of prosody. Affixes are just
those entries which are morphologically connected with a stem and it is clear, that in
these elements pharyngealization is defined by other entry (or a stem).
Frequent alternation of pharyngealized vowels is noteworthy, when the cases of
pharyngealized alternation are noticeable with non-corelete simple vowels. There are
cases, when a simple vowel assimilates a pharyngealized vowel and as a result of this it
gains pharyngealizity. It also points to the fact, that in Udi the pharyngealization process
is not a segmentic feature of a vowel.
In special literature there were several attempts to confirm the phonemicity of
pharyngealized vowels. I think, in Udi generally pharyngealization and not any pharyngealized
sound – a vowel or a consonant has a distinctive function.
As it is clear pharyngealization was characteristic of common Lezgian. The existance
of identic sound-cornespondences among the Lezgian languages from the pharyngealization
standpoint points to it. There are cases, when a pharyngeal vowel evidenced
in the Lezgian and Dagestanian languages is lost in Udi; but instead of it there occurs
pharyngealization. It makes me to think, that in Udi pharyngealization is a compensative
process, that is caused by weakening, loosing or moving in other consonants of
pharyngeal consonants.
To my opinion, an issue of so called intensive consonants in Udi is connected with
pharyngealization. This is supported by the fact, that in most cases intensives are attested
in one word at pharyngealized vowels. During comparing the researchers, materials
this is supported by the cases of alternation of pharyngealized vowels and intensive
consonants.
It should be noted that some contemprorary researchers (T. Maisak, V. Schulze in
Udi verify not intensive, but velarized hushing consonants. Velarization of hushing, that
gives consonants different tembre, should be discussed as accompanying process of
pharyngealization. I believe, that just relevant process of pharyngealization/velarization
of hushings misleaded those researchers, who assume intensive consonants in Udi phonological
system. I think, that distinguishing of velarized phonemes in Udi is not correct.