Treatment of Glottal stops in the data

[LinguList]

Ho should the glottal stop in SIO be treated?

Obviously, it is reconstructed back to Proto-Tukano once it's preceded by "k" and the like, but should we treat it as a single segment, or rather as some specific kind of phonation type?

[thiagochacon]

So, glottal stop is an independent segment when it following a vowel V_ If it is following a consonant, we need to analyze the consonant and the glottal stop as a single segment, as the glottal stop is here representing a laryngealized phonation.

[LinguList]

Ok, this means, I will need to spend some time on re-analysing the data. This is nothing dramatical, but It means that until then, we can't proceed on doing any manual adjustments, and the ball is now again with me ;-)

[LinguList]

Allright, just to confirm this behaviour:

I will segmentize:

• 879: sɨʔso -> s ɨ ʔ s o
• 1370: wɨʔɨ -> w ɨ ʔ ɨ , but
• 1392: kʔata -> kʔ a t a

and, following other rules that already took action before (aspiration etc.), I will segmentize:

• 1374: mɨʔho -> m ɨ ʔh o (ʔh as one segment (?)), and
• 1276: waʔju -> w a ʔj u (ʔj as one segment (?))

The last two cases were treated like this in my former parse. We can re-adjust them, if they do not seem to be correct (also proto-form only has one segment, so it seems to be justified to me, maybe it was even you who modified this?).

And what with

• 199: jeʔpa -> j e ʔ p a

Currently, we have two segments here: ʔp -> ʔ p, but judging from the proto-form, it seems to make more sense to model it as: j e ʔp a.

I suggest I'll just adjust these cases in some consistent way as one proposal, and you re-open this issue in case there are things left that are not in concordance with the linguistics facts.