Talk:Navajo phonology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Phonetics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to phonetics and descriptive phonology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
[edit] jobs vs json
I recommend that we use <ʝ> for the obstruent and <j> for the sonorant. The subscripts are a bit clunky and non-IPA. See Nauruan language#Consonants for a precedent. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 04:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- McDonough writes the [j] from /ɣ/ as Yd, the [j] from the [s~j] alternation as Yc, and the other [j] she calls the "true" glide but since it is rare she doesnt discuss much. Kari writes the [j] from /ɣ/ as ɣ (which would be palatalized), the [j] from the [s~j] alternation as ɣ̑, and the other [j] as y. Hoijer's structural analysis doesnt distinguish between the [j] from the [s~j] alternation and the "true" [j], but he considers the [j] from /ɣ/ to be [ɣ̑] (he indicates palatalization with italics actually). Young & Morgan dictionaries dont symbolize a difference between these since they use orthography, i.e. they are all y. But, in their verb stem inventory, they always note what the stem-initial consonant alternates with, so you can figure out what is what. Proto-Athabascan generally uses ɣ̇, ɣ̑, and y.
-
- I was using jobs (= ɣ̑) and json (="true" j) because I didnt want any confusion about them being pronounced any differently. There's only a distinction in their phonological patterning, which is:
-
-
voiced before i,e voiced before a voiced before o voiceless d-effect /ɣ/ j ɣ w x k jobs j j j s ts json j j j j j’
-
-
- So, I was following Young & Morgan's conflation of symbols but using the subscript to distinguish between the phoneme of the [s ~ j] alternation and the "true" j. Using <ʝ> is closer to using ɣ̑ (which is the Americanist equivalent).
-
- I was also debating not puting the /j/ with the [s ~ j] alternation in the chart since it is a more abstract phoneme. – ishwar (speak) 06:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'd be in support of the last option you mentioned. I think the chart should stick to "surface phonemes" (yes, that's a contradiction in terms, but you know what I mean). But it's fine to mention in the body of the text that various scholars have hypothesized on the basis of morphological evidence that /j/ actually corresponds to two distinct phonemes. (It's sort of like /ɑ/ in American English – in a phoneme chart I'd only list it once, but some people have argued there are two phonemes, a lax /ɑ/ and a tense /ɑt/ that merge on the surface, i.e. "father" and "bother" rhyme on the surface but underlyingly they still have separate vowels. I might mention that in the text, but I wouldn't list them separately in the chart of sounds.) —Angr 20:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I was also debating not puting the /j/ with the [s ~ j] alternation in the chart since it is a more abstract phoneme. – ishwar (speak) 06:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
