search

lexibank / lionnetyotonahua

CLDF dataset derived from Lionnet's "Relaciones Internas de la Rama Sonorense" from 1985
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
0 stars 1 forks source link

role of glottal stop combinations in the data #4

Open LinguList opened 2 years ago

LinguList commented 2 years ago

@maunus, can you tell me if a sequence like c o ʔ n i should be parsed as c o ʔn i (preglottalized nasal) or rather c o.ʔ n i (glottalized vowel or whatever) or simply c o ʔ n i (glottal stop as an independent phoneme. Note that I do not ask for a phonological answer, but the answer of a historical linguist. Phonetically, e.g., people say German pf is two sounds, but in A pf e l it is one sound, as it is one evolving unit, while in A b f a ll phonetically pf consists of two sounds, due to the morpheme boundary.

Maunus commented 2 years ago

I think we should think that glottal stops can occur only as single segments and syllable finally, and in glottalized vowels (written vʔv). There are no glottalized consonants in these languages, so that can be ruled out. There are cases however where they do not correspond to a segment in the other conates because some languages insert glottal stops for various reasons, including stress.

LinguList commented 2 years ago

So we leave it as ts o ʔ n i then, or rather c o.ʔ n i, labeling as part of the vowel, or c o ʔ.n i labeling it as part of the consonant, or rather deleting them even? Of course, this can be done on a case-to-case basis by manually working with teh data!

Maunus commented 2 years ago

I think the <ts o ʔ n i> solution is best. If necessary I can manually try to distinguish between o.ʔ and o ʔ later on.