 |
<< Home Page << Articles and Books
1.10. From PWC to modern West-Caucasian languages.
First we will describe the development from PWC
to PAT (Proto-AbkhazTapant or Proto-Abkhaz-Abaza), PAK (Proto-Adyghe-Kabardian)
and Ubykh languages, and then give a short characterization of the development
from PAT and PAK to modern languages.
1.10.1. Consonantism.
The multitude and extreme complexity of correspondences
between the consonants of West-Caucasian languages are due to the PWC features
of palatalization and labialization, as well as their combination. The
interaction of these features (for the most part transferred from following
vowels, see above) with local and laryngeal features of consonants creates
a very complicated and, at first sight, chaotic system of reflexes. Below,
however, we will try to show that this system can be explained.
For PWC we reconstruct the following system of
consonants (not including the additional features of palatalization and
labialization):
Labials |
p |
p: |
b |
© |
f |
|
|
w |
m |
Pharyngealized labials |
pI |
p:I |
bI |
©I |
|
|
|
|
mI |
Dentals |
t |
t: |
d |
® |
|
|
|
r |
n |
Hissing |
c |
c: |
½ |
ˆ |
s |
z |
Hushing |
‰ |
‰: |
¾ |
Š |
« |
«: |
¼ |
j |
Laterals
|
œ |
œ: |
ž |
|
› |
›: |
L |
l |
Velars
|
k |
k: |
g |
™ |
x |
|
‘ |
Uvulars |
q |
q: |
G |
ª |
» |
|
’ |
Pharyngealized uvulars |
qI |
qI: |
|
ªI |
»I |
|
’I |
Pharyngealized consonants in PWC are reconstructed
mostly on the basis of Ubykh evidence, and tense ("preruptive")
consonants - on basis of the Adygh evidence, though other languages often
have specific reflexes of these classes of consonants as well. The tense
fricatives «: and ›: reveal specific reflexes in Adygh (Shapsug),
see below, and in some cases their reflexes differ from the reflexes of
respective lax fricatives in other languages as well (Ubykh, PAT). However,
in combination with certain quality features, the reflexes of lax and tense
fricatives have apparently merged in all WC languages: thus, it is impossible
to distinguish PWC *›´ from *›´: (although there is a distinction
*› - *›:), or *« from *«: (although *«´ is opposed
to «´:). It is quite possible that PWC also had distinctions
of other tense and lax fricatives (*f-f:, *s-s:, *x-x:, *»-»:,
*»I-»:I), but, because of the specific character of Adygh reflexation
(the Shapsug dialect preserves only two pairs of opposed fricatives at
the present time, «-«: and «´-«´:),
their reflexes have merged wth each other in all modern West-Caucasian
languages.
We reconstruct the following correspondences between
the subgroups of West-Caucasian languages:
PWC |
PAT |
Ub |
PAK |
*p |
*p |
p |
*p |
*p: |
*b |
b |
*p: |
*b |
*b |
b |
*b |
*© |
*© |
© |
*© |
*f |
*f |
f |
*x(º) |
*w |
*w |
w |
*w |
*m |
*m |
m |
*m |
*p´ |
*p |
tº |
*t |
*p´: |
*b |
(dº¬tº) |
*t: |
*b´ |
*b |
dº |
*d |
*©´ |
*© |
®º |
*® |
*pº |
*p |
f |
*p |
*bº |
*f |
f |
*b |
*p´º
|
*c´ |
tº |
*b´º
|
*½´
|
dº |
*d |
*©´º
|
*ˆ´ |
®º |
*® |
*pI |
p |
vI |
*p |
*p:I |
|
bI |
*p: |
*bI |
*b |
bI |
*b |
*©I |
|
©I |
*© |
*mI |
*m |
mI |
*m |
*t |
*t |
t |
*t |
*t: |
*d |
d |
*t: |
*d |
*d |
d |
*d |
*® |
*® |
® |
*® |
*r |
*r |
d-,r¬’ |
*t:-,r |
*n |
*n |
n |
*n |
*r´ |
*r |
L |
*½ |
*tº |
*tº |
tº |
*t |
*t:º |
*d(º) |
tº |
*t: |
*dº |
*dº |
dº |
*d |
*®º
|
*®º |
®º |
*® |
*t´º
|
*tº |
|
*c |
*®´º
|
*®º |
®º |
*ˆ |
*c |
*c |
c |
*s-,c |
*c: |
*c |
c |
*c: |
*½ |
*½ |
½ |
*½¬z |
*ˆ |
*ˆ |
ˆ |
*ˆ |
*s |
*s |
s |
*s |
*z |
*z |
½¬z |
*z |
*c´ |
*c´ |
c´ |
(*s) |
*c´: |
*½´(?) |
c´ |
*c: |
*½´ |
*½´
|
½´ |
*½¬z |
*ˆ´ |
*ˆ´ |
ˆ´ |
*ˆ |
*s´ |
*s´ |
s´ |
*s |
*z´ |
*z |
½´¬z´ |
*z |
*cº |
*cº |
cº |
*sº- |
*c:º |
*cº |
cº |
*c:º |
*½º
|
*½º |
|
*½º |
*ˆº |
*ˆº |
ˆº |
*ˆº |
*sº |
*sº |
sº |
*sº |
*zº |
*zº |
½º¬zº |
*zº |
*c´º
|
(*‰) |
|
*c´ |
*½´º
|
*¾¬¼ |
¾´ |
*½´ |
*ˆ´º
|
*Š |
Š´ |
*ˆ´ |
*s´º
|
*s´ |
Ǽ |
*s´ |
*z´º
|
*½´¬z´ |
¼º |
*z´ |
*‰ |
*c´ |
c |
*s |
*¾ |
*½´
|
½ |
*½¬z |
*Š |
*ˆ´ |
ˆ |
*ˆ´(?) |
*«(¬*«:) |
*s´ |
s |
*s |
*¼ |
*z´ |
z |
*z |
*‰´ |
*‰´ |
‰´ |
*‰´ |
*‰´: |
*½´(¬‰´) |
‰´ |
*‰´: |
*¾´ |
*¾´
|
¾´ |
*¾´¬¼´ |
*Š´ |
*Š´ |
Š´ |
*Š´ |
*«´ |
*«(?) |
«´ |
*« |
*«´:
|
*« |
«´ |
*«: |
*¼´ |
*¼ |
¼´ |
*¼ |
*j |
*j |
j |
*j |
*‰º |
*‰ |
‰ |
*‰´ |
*‰:º |
*zº |
‰ |
*‰´: |
*¾º
|
*½º¬zº |
¾ |
*¾´¬¼´ |
*Šº |
*Š |
Š |
*Š´ |
*Ǽ
|
*sº |
« |
*« |
*«:º
|
*« |
« |
*«: |
*¼º
|
*½´(?) |
¼ |
*¼ |
*‰´º
|
*‰ |
‰´ |
*‰ |
*‰´:º
|
*¾¬¼ |
‰´ |
*‰: |
*Š´º
|
*Š |
Š´ |
*Š |
*«´º
|
*Ǽ |
Ǽ |
*s´ |
*«´:º
|
*« |
sº |
*«: |
*¼´º
|
*¼º |
¼º |
*z´ |
*œ |
*x |
«´ |
*‰´ |
*œ: |
*c |
(c´) |
*‰´: |
*ž |
*l |
L |
*t“ |
* |
*x/ˆ |
ˆ´ |
*Š´ |
*› |
|
s´ |
*«´ |
*›: |
*x |
s´ |
*«´: |
*l |
*l |
d-,0¬j |
*t“-,L |
*ϫ |
*x´ |
«´ |
*‰´ |
*ž´ |
*‘´ |
’(¬z´) |
*‘ |
*´ |
*«´
|
|
* |
*›´(¬›´:) |
*«´
|
› |
*› |
*L´ |
*¼´
|
L |
*L |
*l´ |
*r-,l¬‘´ |
L |
*d- |
*ϼ |
*cº |
cº |
*‰ |
*œ:º |
*cº |
cº |
*‰: |
*žº |
*l |
w |
*“ |
*º |
*ˆ(º) |
ˆ(º) |
*Š |
*ݼ |
*« |
sº |
*x(º) |
*›:º |
*« |
s(º) |
*«´: |
*œ´º
|
*‰º |
f |
*x |
*œ´:º
|
*¼º |
¾´ |
*‰´: |
*ž´º
|
*¾º |
½ |
*ž |
*´º
|
*Šº |
ˆ |
*Š´ |
*›´º(¬›´:º) |
*« |
Ǽ |
*x(º) |
*L´º
|
*¼ |
¼º |
*‘´ |
*k |
*k |
k´ |
*k´ |
*g |
*g |
g´ |
*g´ |
*™ |
*™ |
™´ |
*™´ |
*x |
*x |
«´ |
*x |
*‘ |
*‘ |
‘¬’ |
*‘ |
*k´ |
*k´ |
|
*k´ |
*g´ |
*g´ |
g´ |
*g´ |
*™´ |
*™´ |
™´ |
*™´ |
*x´ |
*x´ |
s´ |
*«´ |
*‘´ |
*‘´ |
z´ |
*¼´ |
*kº |
*kº |
kº |
*kº |
*k:º |
*gº |
gº |
*k:º |
*gº |
*gº |
gº |
*gº |
*™º |
*™º |
™º |
*™º |
*xº |
*xº |
x |
*x(º) |
*g´º
|
*gº |
g´ |
*gº |
*™´º
|
*™º |
™´ |
*™´º |
*x´º
|
*sº |
x´ |
*xº |
*‘´º(?) |
*zº |
’´ |
*’º |
*q |
(*“) |
q |
*q- |
*q: |
*q |
q |
*q: |
*G |
*‘ |
’ |
*’ |
*ª |
*ª |
ª |
*q: |
*» |
*“ |
» |
*» |
*’ |
* |
’ |
*’ |
*q´: |
*q |
q´ |
*G´ |
*‘´ |
’´ |
*ª´ |
*ª´
|
ª´ |
*‚ |
*»´ |
*“ |
x´ |
*»´ |
*’´ |
* |
’´ |
*’ |
*qº |
*Ҽ |
qº |
*qº-,q:º |
*q:º |
*qº |
qº |
*q:º |
*Gº |
*Լ |
’º |
*’º |
*ªº
|
*ªº |
ªº |
*q:º |
*ȼ
|
*Ҽ |
ȼ |
*ȼ |
*’º |
*º |
*’º |
*’º |
*q´º
|
*“(º) |
x´ |
*qº- |
*q´:º
|
|
q´ |
*q:º |
*G´º
|
*‘(º) |
’´ |
*’º |
*ª´º
|
*º(*ªº?) |
ª´ |
*‚º |
*»´º
|
*“(º) |
»´ |
*ȼ |
*’´º
|
*(º) |
’´ |
*’º |
*q:I |
* |
|
*q: |
*ªI |
*“(?) |
ªI |
*q: |
*»I |
|
»I |
*» |
*’I |
* |
’I |
*’ |
*q´I |
*q |
q(I) |
*“ |
*q´:I |
*‚ |
ª |
*‚ |
*ª´I
|
*“ |
ª |
*‚ |
*»´I
|
*“ |
»(I) |
*“ |
*’´I |
* |
’ |
*j |
*qIº |
*Ҽ |
»Iº |
*qº- |
*qI:º |
*º |
qI(º) |
*q:º |
*ªIº
|
*ªº(*qº) |
ªIº |
*q:º |
*»Iº
|
*Ҽ |
»Iº |
*ȼ |
*’Iº |
(*Ҽ?) |
’Iº |
*’º |
*q´Iº
|
*qº |
ȼ |
*“ |
*q´I:º |
*º |
ªº |
*‚º |
*ª´Iº
|
*Ҽ |
ªº |
*‚º |
*’´Iº
|
*º |
w |
*w¬’º |
Comments.
1. Labial consonants. As we see from the table,
labial resonants, the rare fricative *f and labialized pharyngealized consonants
do not have any palatalized or labialized correlates. Other consonants
have palatalized and labialized variants. While evaluating the given reconstructions
one must keep in mind that the labialized dentals are articulated as biphocal
explosives (i.e. phonetically = /tp´, db´, ®p´/)
in modern Abkhaz and Ubykh, and have a pronounced palatalized character;
therefore, the development of the type *p´ > tº (with a possible
further delabialization tº > t) seems quite possible to us. The
reconstruction of the series of "palatalized-labialized" labials
is rather hypothetical. One could reconstruct here a series of "palatalized-labialized"
dentals as well, but some external correspondences lead us to assume the
labial character of original PWC phonemes. In Ubykh and Adygh they give
the same reflexes as palatalized labials proper; in PAT we should suppose,
at first, the depalatalization of palatalized labials (*p´ > *p),
and afterwards - the delabialization of "palatalized-labialized"
with a following affrication (*p´º > *p´ >c´).
2. Dental consonants. For a specific rare correspondence
"PAT *r: Ub. L: PAK *½" we suggest a PWC palatalized *r´.
The liquids *r and *l (on the latter, see below) are thus the only PWC
resonants that have palatalized correlates (correlation in labialization
in the system of resonants is altogether absent). An interesting feature
of the dental series is the possible presence there of at least two "palatalized-labialized"
consonants (*t´º and *®´º), while the respective
plain palatalized ones are missing. However, it is not to be excluded,
that they were present in PWC, but were subject to depalatalization (or,
less likely, merged with the reflexes of affricates) in all descendant
languages.
3. Hissing consonants. Plain hissing consonants
are well preserved in descendant languages (except the fricativization
*c > s in PAK and the ½-z variation in the place of *½
in PAK and in the place of *z in Ubykh). Palatalized hissing consonants
are preserved in PAT (though we should note the depalatalization *z´
> z) and in Ubykh, but depalatalized in Adyghe. Labialized hissing consonants
are generally well preserved in all three subgroups (in modern languages
labialized hissing consonants are phonetically articulated as dentolabialized,
see below).
The suggested "palatalized-labialized"
hissing consonants have specific reflexes in subgroups. In Adygh a consonant
shift occurred: after the depalatalization of original palatalized sounds
(see above), the delabialization of "palatalized-labialized"
hissing sounds apparently happened (*c´º>*c´, *s´º>*s´,
etc.). In Ubykh a development of palatalized-labialized hissing sounds
into palatalized-labialized hushing ones apparently occurred (*½´º>¾´º,
*s´º>«´º, etc.), with a following delabialization
of affricates (there are no hushing labialized affricates present in modern
Ubykh), but with the preservation of labialization in the subsystem of
fricatives (it must be noted that the phonemes, transcribed in Ubykh as
«º, ¼º, according to their descriptions, have an
evident - though phonologically insignificant - palatalization, i.e. phonetically
they are /«´¹, ¼´¹/). A similar development
had apparently happened in PAT, i.e. first all palatalized-labialized hissing
affricates developed into palatalized-labialized hushing ones; then affricates
were simultaneously delabialized and depalatalized - cf. a similar development
that occurred much later in some Abaza dialects, where the process (*tº)
> ‰´º > ‰, *«´º > « happened
(see [Lomtatidze 1976]). As for palatalized-labialized fricatives, they
have apparently simply lost their labialization (i.e. the same process
as in Adygh languages occurred). As a result, there we have a specific
system of correspondences, wherein the original labialization of all regarded
consonants is hinted at only by the fricative reflexes «º, ¼º
in Ubykh. Below we will see that complicated processes of delabialization,
accompanied by a shift in other quality characteristics of consonants,
are typical for other local series of West-Caucasian consonants as well:
it was these processes that have caused the extreme complexity of phonetic
correspondences, observed among modern WC languages.
4. Hushing consonants. PWC palatalized hushing
consonants are comparatively stable in WC languages. They are usually preserved
in descendant languages (except the palatalized hushing fricatives *«´,
*«´:, *¼´, which have lost palatalization in PAT
and in PAK; as we see from the table, the palatalized hushing fricatives
of PAT and PAK go back only to PWC lateral or velar consonants).
The matter is more complicated with the reflexes
of PWC non-palatalized and "palatalized-labialized" hushing consonants.
Here the following situation is observed:
a) there are several rows of correspondences where
the PAT palatalized hissing ("hissing-hushing") consonants correspond
to Ubykh and PAK non-palatalized hissing ones. In this case we cannot reconstruct
palatalized hissing consonants for PWC, since their place is already occupied
(see above: palatalized hissing consonants are reconstructed on the base
of the correspondences "PAT, Ub. palatalized hissing: PAK non-palatalized
hissing");
b) despite the fact that non-palatalized hushing
consonants are present in all three subgroups of West-Caucasian languages,
the correspondences between them are never uniform; thus, on one side,
we have rows of correspondences where the non-palatalized hushing consonants
in PAT and Ubykh correspond to palatalized hushing consonants in PAK; on
the other side, we have rows of correspondences where non-palatalized hushing
consonants in PAT and PAK correspond to palatalized hushing consonants
in Ubykh. The parallel fricative rows of correspondences usually reveal
traces of original labialization. Thus, the row "PAT *‰ : Ub. ‰ :
PAK *‰´" is parallel to the row "PAT *sº : Ub. «
: PAK *«" (we must keep in mind that the non-palatalized PAK
*« is a reflex of an earlier *«´, see above); on the
other hand, the row "PAT *‰ : Ub. ‰´ : PAK *‰" is evidently
parallel to the row "PAT *« : Ub. sº : PAK *«:",
etc. Here the Abkhaz and Ubykh evidence serves as an argument for reconstructing
original labialization in those rows of hushing correspondences, where
only non-palatalized (and non-labialized) hushing reflexes are found nowadays.
In our opinion, this situation should be interpreted
as follows. The original non-palatalized hushing *‰, *Š, *«, etc.,
have lost their hushing feature in all three subgroups, changing into non-palatalized
hissing consonants in Ubykh and PAK (only the glottalized *Š, for some
unclear reason, has yielded PAK hissing-hushing *ˆ´), and into hissing-hushing
consonants in PAT. Here we should note that the so-called "hissing-hushing"
consonants in West-Caucasian languages have a dual phonological and phonetical
nature; on one hand, they occupy the place of palatalized correlates for
nonpalatalized hissing consonants (and therefore merge with plain hissing
consonants in case of depalatalization). On the other hand, they form a
sort of intermediate series between hissing and hushing consonants. Because
of the last circumstance, the direct development of non-palatalized hushing
into hissing-hushing consonants seems phonetically justified. The fact
that, in the regarded rows of correspondences, one must reconstruct hushing
consonants, is confirmed by external comparison with East-Caucasian languages
as well.
After the loss of old non-palatalized hushing consonants
their place in PAT, Ubykh and PAK started to be filled by means of delabializing
originally labialized consonants. In PAT reflexes of labialized and "palatalized"
hushing affricates merged (all of them developed into non-palatalized hushing
consonants, except the affricate *¾º, that apparently fricativized
early and developed similarly to the fricative *Ǽ; the variation
zº¬½º in the place of *¾º is probably
a rather late occurrence). The tense fricatives *«:º, *«´:º
developed similarly ( > PAT *«); however, lax fricatives preserved
labialization, though they have been locally shifted (*Ǽ >
sº and *«´º, *¼´º > «º,
¼º). We must note that the latter shift is, in a way, "orthographic":
the PAT labialized hushing *«º, *¼º, as well as
the respective consonants of the modern Bzyb dialect, undoubtedly had been
phonetically palatalized (= [«´º], [¼´º]),
though they had no non-palatalized correlates. The reflex ½´
in the place of PWC *¼º is unclear (one should expect a *zº).
In Ubykh the labialized hushing affricates were
subject to a uniform process of delabialization (*‰º > ‰, *‰´º
> ‰´, etc.). Nonpalatalized labialized hushing fricatives developed
similarly (*«º, *«:º > «, *¼º
> ¼), but palatalized-labialized hushing fricatives have preserved
labialization. Lax *«´º, *¼´º > «º,
¼º (just as in PAT, this rule does not really mean any phonetic
change; on the phonetic character of these Ubykh consonants see above,
page ), but the tense *«´:º has lost its hushing character
and developed into sº.
Finally, in PAK the palatalized and non-palatalized
labialized hushing consonants seem to have "swapped places" after
delabialization. Apparently, there was a whole series of successive processes
that led to this result. We can suppose that the palatalized-labialized
hushing consonants, as a result of delabialization, first changed into
hissing-hushing (traces of this stage are preserved as hissing-hushing
fricatives s´, z´ in the place of PWC *«´º,
*¼´º). Non-palatalized labialized hushing consonants
consequently became the only labialized hushing series and underwent a
phonetic palatalization (if there is no phonological distinction in palatalization,
the palatalized articulation of hushing consonants is always more typical
for Caucasian languages), as a result of which, after delabialization,
they merged with the reflexes of palatalized hushing consonants. Only afterwards
did the hissing-hushing consonants (except lax fricatives *s´, *z´
< *«´º, *¼´º) were apparantly shifted
into the non-palatalized hushing series. Thus, here we also see a phonetic
closeness between non-palatalized hushing and hissing-hushing consonants,
which was already mentioned above (concerning the development like *‰ >
c´ in PAT).
5. Lateral consonants. The reconstruction of lateral
consonants in PWC is extremely complicated. PAT has altogether lost laterals
as a local series; PAK and Ubykh have only three lateral consonants (›,
L and ), whose correspondences with the PAT fricatives «´
and ¼´ were already established by N. S. Trubetskoy (see [Trubetskoy
1922]). However, we may show that these series of correspondences are not
at all the only ones that reflect PWC lateral consonants.
First, we should note an evident palatalized character
of those PWC consonants that were preserved as laterals in PAK and Ubykh
(this is already testified to by the palatalized character of the PAT reflexes
«´, ¼´). Therefore, we reconstruct PWC palatalized
laterals *›´, *L´, *´ here.
The presence of laterals in PWC can be also postulated
in those series of correspondences where PAT has the lateral reflex l.
Therefore, it is comparatively easy to reconstruct the PWC resonants *l
and *l´ (though in some languages and positions we observe the specific
reflexes r, d, t“ here; the reflex L in PAK and Ubykh is not surprising,
because L is the only voiced lateral phoneme here). However, we have two
more series of correspondences (PAT *l: Ub. L: PAK *t“ and PAT *l: Ub.
w: PAK *“) in which we should reconstruct some PWC lateral affricates (the
latter row evidently represents a labialized correlate of the former one,
and the labialization of resonants is impossible in PWC). The most natural
solution would be to reconstruct the voiced affricates *ž and *žº,
the reflexes of which appear to be rather close to those of the resonant
*l.
In addition to the examined corespondences, there
is still a rather large number of specific rows of correspondences, in
which descendant languages either have sibilant reflexes (that do not at
all fit into the ranks of the rows of correspondences of original hissing
and hushing consonants examined above), or mixed reflexes, with front affricates
or fricatives of some languages corresponding to velar fricatives in others.
The latter circumstance is already a direct hint at the possibility of
reconstructing original lateral consonants here (because velar fricatives
are typical reflexes of laterals in many East-Caucasian languages, see
above). The reconstruction of PWC laterals in all of these series is well
confirmed by East-Caucasian correspondences.
All types of correspondences that are of interest
to us here are divided into four types (which is by itself already an argument
for the reconstruction of a standard PWC four-way distinction of qualitative
features):
1) Correspondences of non-palatalized PAT fricatives
(*x) or hissing affricates (*c, *ˆ) to the Ubykh palatalized hissing consonants
s´, ˆ´ (or to the hushing «´ in the series PAT
*x: Ub. «´: PAK *‰´) and PAK palatalized hushing consonants.
Here we reconstruct PWC non-palatalized laterals (since the places of palatalized
laterals are already occupied - see above, and because of the nonpalatalized
character of PAT reflexes). We should note that PAT has a double reflex
(x or ˆ) of the glottalized *, the former being present if a following
hissing consonant is present in the word (i.e. in a dissimilative position),
and the latter - in independent position. The phoneme *ž, reconstructed
above, is included in the series of PWC nonpalatalized lateral consonants
as well, despite the fact that it has specific reflexes in descendant languages
(which is natural for the least stable element of the lateral series -
the voiced lateral affricate).
2) Correspondences of the palatalized PAT fricatives
«´ and ¼´ to PAK and Ubykh lateral ›, L, . Here,
as we have already pointed out, we reconstruct PWC palatalized laterals.
This series should also undoubtedly include the correspondences of PAT
palatalized fricatives x´, ‘´ to Ubykh «´, z´(¬’)
and PAK *‰´, *‘ (i.e. the rows of correspondences "PAT *x´
: Ub. «´: PAK *‰´" and "PAT *‘´ : Ub.
z´(¬R) : PAK *‘"). In the two latter rows it is natural
to reconstruct the palatalized PWC affricates *œ´ and *ž´ (which
have also lost their palatal character in PAK and Ubykh).
3) Correspondences, in which PAT and Ubykh reveal
labialized hissing consonants, but PAK has hushing reflexes. It is evident
that we also should add here the rows of correspondences with nonpalatalized
hushing fricative reflexes in PAT, labialized hissing fricative reflexes
in Ubykh and either hushing or velar fricative reflexes in PAK. These are
most probably reflexes of PWC labialized lateral affricates (*ϼ,
*œ:º, *º; *žº, as well as the respective non-labialized
*ž, has specific reflexes, see above) and fricatives (*›º, *›:º).
4) Correspondences of PAT labialized hushing consonants
to different (velar or front) consonants in Ubykh and PAK. There are exactly
four such correspondences (by the number of affricates: *œ´º,
*œ´:º, *ž´º and *´º), and we should apparently
reconstruct the PWC "palatalized-labialized" lateral affricates
here (we must note that in PAT labialized hushing affricates, as well as
fricatives, on which see above, had probably been phonetically palatalized).
There are also two fricative rows, in which Ubykh «º, ¼º
correspond to non-palatalized hushing consonants in PAT and to velars in
PAK, and in which we reconstruct the lateral fricatives *›´º
and *L´º respectively.
We should once more emphasize that for all the
above-examined rows of correspondences quite reliable external PEC data
exists, pointing to the fact that all these rows actually reflect original
lateral consonants. Without such external data the reconstruction of the
PWC system of laterals would certainly be absolutely hypothetical. Let
us note that the correspondence of Adygh front affricates to lateral consonants
of Daghestan languages was also mentioned in the works of A. I. Abdokov
(see [Abdokov 1976, 1983]); these works, however, do not contain a reconstruction
of the PWC system of laterals.
We see that the reconstruction of three local affricate
series (hissing, hushing and lateral) and a four-way distinction of qualitative
features (plain = nonpalatalized, palatalized, labialized and palatalized-labialized
consonants) allows us to find a place and to suggest a phonetic interpretation
virtually for all - absolutely chaotic at first sight - correspondences
between West-Caucasian affricates and fricatives.
6. Velar consonants. At the present time the opposition
of palatalized and unpalatalized velars exists only in Abkhaz and Abaza,
and is reconstructed on their evidence. In Ubykh and PAK all velars underwent
a secondary palatalization. The "palatalized-labialized" velars
are reconstructed for those rows of correspondences, in which Ubykh has
non-labialized (palatalized) velars corresponding to labialized velars
in PAT and PAK. The reflexes of the palatalized fricatives *x´, *‘´
(preserved in PAT but subject to sibilantization in Ubykh and PAK), as
well as of *x´º, *‘´º (yielding normal reflexes in
Ubykh and PAK, but developing into *sº, zº in PAT) are somewhat
specific (though easy to explain).
7. Uvular consonants are best preserved in the
Ubykh language (where we should note only the usual processes: weakening
of tense uvulars and delabialization of "palatalized-labialized"
uvulars, completely similar to the analogical process in the system of
velars, see above). We must note that the signs x´ and ’´ in
Ubykh are somewhat misleading: there is no distinction of velar and uvular
palatalized fricatives, and therefore we could write x´, ‘´
as well as »´, ’´ (thus, the development *»´
> x´ is pure orthography, not a real change). Among other changes
in Ubykh we should also note the fricativization G > ’ (in combination
with all qualitative features) and *q´º > x´.
In PAT we observe a characteristic process of laryngealization
*», ’ > “, (in combination with all qualitative features). A
similar laryngealization has also occurred here with the lax uvular *q
(and its qualitative correlates), obviously, as a sequence of the preceding
fricativization *q > *». Among other processes that have affected
the PAT system, we should mention: 1) the weakening *q:>q; 2) the fricativization
*G > ‘ (we must note that, in PAT, uvular and velar fricatives were
not opposed, therefore we could write ’ instead of ‘). The original palatalization
is preserved only by PAT reflexes of the PWC phonemes *G´ and *ª´;
palatalized q´, “´ and ´ are missing in PAT, therefore
in the place of PWC *q´:, *»´ and *’´, PAT has
non-palatalized reflexes.
In PAK lax q, qº are well represented only
in initial position; judging by the available examples, the PWC lax uvular
affricates were strengthened in intervocalic position in PAK. Palatalization
of uvulars (except the relic fricative »´; on its reflexes
in Adygh languages, see below) has been lost in PAK. We must note, however,
that while the non-palatalized glottalized *ª, *ªº lose
their glottalization in PAK ( > q:, qº:), the respective palatalized
consonants yield the specific laryngeal reflexes ‚, ‚º. We should
note that A. Kuipers ([Kuipers 1963]) reconstructs here PAK *ª, *ªº,
which does not seem quite legitimate to us (see below).
Uvular pharyngealized consonants are only preserved
in Ubykh. In this language pharyngealization was lost only by palatalized
pharyngealized consonants, whose presence in PWC can, however, be postulated
on basis of specific rows of correspondences, where Ubykh uvular (sometimes
preserving their pharyngealization) consonants correspond to PAT and PAK
emphatic laryngeals.
In PAT most pharyngealized uvulars developed into
emphatic laryngeals; the uvular character was preserved only by PWC *q´I,
*q´I and *ª´Iº. In PAK the pharyngealized uvulars
(except the palatalized ones) develop just as their respective non-pharyngealized
counterparts. However, the suggested uvular pharyngealized palatalized
(as well as palatalized-labialized) consonants have all developed into
emphatic laryngeals (we should note the development *’´I > j,
*’´Iº > w, that had apparently had an intermediate stage
, º).
1.10.1.1. Consonant clusters.
Consonant clusters are extremely widespread in
modern West-Caucasian languages. Historical analysis shows, however, that
in most cases these combinations are secondary, arising as a result of
vowel reduction. Only in comparatively few cases can we reconstruct real
consonant clusters for PWC (mostly on the basis of Ubykh and PAK data;
in PAT all the old clusters were probably altogether lost) in the following
correspondences:
PWC |
PAT |
Ub |
PAK |
*P-C |
C |
PC |
PC |
*M-C |
m(V)C |
mC |
C |
*T-C |
C |
TC |
TC |
*n-C |
C |
nC |
n(V)C |
*r-C |
C |
C |
r(V)C |
*s-C |
C |
«C/«´C |
«C/tC |
In the latter type of clusters, Ubykh and Adyghe
have « preceding a uvular consonant, but «´ and t respectively
preceding other consonants.
All the listed types of clusters are mostly attested
in the beginning of PWC roots and have probably historically developed
from the sequences *CVC-, where vowel reduction had occurred already on
the PWC level. In some cases, however, the initial PWC clusters probably
reflect grammatical prefixation (see above, page 85), the traces of which
are almost lost in nominal PWC roots. Grammatical prefixation is probably
reflected in some other cases as well (e.g., there is a set of roots with
the initial sequences PC- or TC- in PAK, but plain C- in Ubykh and in PAT;
these cases are difficult to interpret in any other way than the reflection
of old prefixation).
In the medial position of PWC non-monosyllabic
roots, consonant clusters are extremely rare (on the simplification of
old consonant clusters in this position see above, page 63). However, there
is one class of cases that should be specially mentioned. In some roots
with initial labial consonants there are variations of nasal and non-nasal
reflexes in descendant languages. We tentatively reconstruct nasalized
vowels here and establish the following rows of correspondences:
PWC
|
PAT |
Ub |
PAK |
*wV~-
|
*w- |
w- |
n- |
*bV~-
|
*m-/P- |
P- |
P- |
*p:V~-,*pV~-,*©V~- |
*m-/P- |
m- |
P- |
In many cases like this nasalization probably reflects
old lost nasal or liquid medial resonants. However, the reconstruction
of nasalization for PWC is rather tentative - first of all, because there
are no traces of nasalized vowels after other initial consonants or in
monosyllabic structures. The exact phonetic character of this phenomenon
in PWC is yet to be investigated.
PAT has the reflex m- usually preceding fricatives
and resonants, while a non-nasal reflex is present in other cases. Laryngeal
features (voice / voicelessness / glottalization) of the initial labial
in PAT, Ubykh and PAK reflexes depend on the following consonant (see below).
1.10.1.2. Variations of laryngeal features of consonants.
In some cases in West-Caucasian languages we observe
a violation of regular (see above) correspondences of features, such as
voice/voicelessness, tenseness/laxness and glottalization. Variations of
voice/voicelessness and glottalization are not rare in the development
from PNC to PWC (see above); but sometimes such variations are observed
as well within West-Caucasian languages themselves. Sometimes the reasons
for these variations are difficult to establish; in most cases, however,
the probable reason is the activity of various assimilative processes.
One of the most typical cases is the violation
of correspondences of laryngeal features in structures of the type PVCV,
where the first consonant is usually labial, and the second consonant is
usually a front one. Most frequent are the following types of correspondences
between languages:
PWC |
PAT |
Ub |
PAK |
*pVC:V |
*p(V)CV |
pCV |
*p:C:V |
*pVC·V |
*p(V)CV |
pCV |
*©C·V |
*pVZV |
*p(V)SV |
bZV |
*bZV |
*©VZV(?) |
*b(V)ZV |
©C·V |
*bZV |
In some other types of roots we may also suppose
the activity of various assimilative processes; they all, however, require
individual comments.
1.10.2. Vocalism.
West-Caucasian languages are known for their poor
vocalic systems. For PWC we should apparently also reconstruct a system
consisting of two vowels: * and *a, preserved in all descendant languages.
In Ubykh and in the Adygh languages there is an additional long vowel ƒ.
In the Adygh languages this vowel is evidently secondary: it appears in
the first syllable of the word in the place of the short *a in case there
is another a in the next syllable (in case of in the next syllable there
is no lengthening). In Ubykh, ƒ in the first syllable can also appear only
before the vowel a of the second syllable. In the same position, however,
we can meet the short a as well, thus the distribution between a and ƒ
is not quite clear here (though it would not be reasonable to reconstruct
the opposition *a - *ƒ for PWC on the basis of Ubykh data alone).
In many cases the PAT, Ubykh and PAK vowels and
a uniformly correspond to each other. We should mention some particular
regularities that seem to modify the reflexes in individual cases:
1) The vowel * yields a in PAK and Ubykh in monosyllabic
roots that are included in the enklinomena (unaccented) type in PAT; the
old * is preserved in roots of the orthotonic (accented) type and after
labialized consonants;
2) The vowel *a is usually preserved everywhere.
Only in the initial syllable *ma- in bisyllabic roots do we observe the
development a > in Ubykh and in PAT - also only in roots with the
initial unaccented (minus) syllable.
The situation with vocalic correspondences is somewhat
complicated by the evident presence of the */a ablaut in PWC (in PAT there
are clear traces of this ablaut in nominal roots, and in PAK it is very
productive in verbal stems). This often leads to a violation of correspondences
even between close dialects.
On the prehistory of West-Caucasian bivocalism
see above (page 73); its development from a richer original system (as
a result of transferring qualitative features onto preceding consonants)
seems quite clear. This allows us to explain the extreme richness of PWC
consonantism as well as the four-way opposition of consonantal qualitative
features. However, it is hardly reasonable to reconstruct qualitative oppositions
of vowels as late as on the PWC level, as does A. I. Abdokov; we should
rather date the process of destruction of qualitative (and quantitative)
vocalic oppositions from the period that immediately preceded the division
of the PWC unity.
1.10.3. Root structure and prosody.
In PWC, as well as in modern West-Caucasian languages,
the bulk of roots had the structure (C)CV; longer roots with the structure
CVCV or CVCVCV were more rare. The prevalence of monosyllabic roots in
PWC is historically explained by the fall of syllables with resonant and
laryngeal consonants (see above, page 85).
PWC undoubtedly had a tonal accent structure. In
the modern Ubykh and Abkhaz languages the original tonal system has been
transformed into a system with a dynamic mobile accent, wherein the positioning
rules are determined by information about the belonging of each syllable
of the given word-form to one of the two accent classes (which are respectively
marked as "+" and "-" by V. A. Dybo). Both Abkhaz and
Ubykh have a rule according to which dynamic accent in the word is placed
on the last syllable in the sequence of "plus" syllables, and
in the case when the word has no "plus" syllables - on the last
syllable in the sequence of "minus" syllables. See the description
and an attempt of the reconstruction of the original system (it is suggested
that the morphonologic "+" and "-" characteristics
reflect PWC tones) in the works [Dybo 1977, 1989].
Some irregularities in accent correspondences between
Ubykh and Abkhaz are probably explained by the presence of a third tone
in PWC, which cannot be discovered by synchronous morphonological analysis
of the Ubykh and Abkhaz systems. While working with speakers of the Tapant
dialect of the Abaza language, we discovered that it still preserves tonal
oppositions (already lost in Abkhaz), that are, however, already combined
with a developed system of dynamic accent. The differences between the
Tapant and Abkhaz systems also serve as an argument in favour of reconstructing
one more tonal feature in PAT, whose postulation would allow us to explain
many cases of irregular Abkhaz-Ubykh accent correspondences. The solution
of this problem now depends on a careful field examination of the Abaza
data.
In the modern Adygh languages the accent distinctions
seem to be absent. However, S. L. Nikolayev was able to reconstruct a distinctive
accent in bisyllabic nominal PAK roots, the place of which, in most cases,
corresponds to the place of accent in related Abkhaz and Ubykh forms (see
below).
The reconstruction of the PWC accent system, we
hope, will be completed in the nearest future, after which it will be possible
to attempt a comparison of prosodic systems in West-Caucasian and East-Caucasian
languages.
1.10.4. From PAT to the modern Abkhaz and Abaza
dialects.
All modern Abkhaz and Abaza dialects are very close
to each other, and therefore we will limit ourselves to the briefest information
about their comparative phonology (we use the data of the best described
systems: the Bzyb and Abzhui dialects of Abkhaz and the Tapant dialect
of Abaza).
For PAT we reconstruct the following system of
consonants (a similar system - with some minor differences - is suggested
in the works of K.V. Lomtatidze, see [Lomtatidze 1976] et al.):
Labials
|
p |
b |
© |
f |
m |
w |
Dentals
|
t |
d |
®
|
r,l |
n |
Labialized dentals
|
tº |
dº |
®º |
Hissing
|
c |
½ |
ˆ |
s |
z |
Hissing-hushing (palatalized)
|
c´ |
½´ |
ˆ´ |
s´ |
z´ |
Labialized hissing
|
cº |
½º |
ˆº |
sº |
zº |
Hushing
|
‰ |
¾ |
Š |
« |
¼ |
Palatalized hushing
|
‰´ |
¾´ |
Š´ |
«´ |
¼´ |
j |
Labialized hushing
|
‰º |
¾º |
Šº |
Ǽ |
¼º |
Velars |
k |
g |
™ |
x |
‘ |
Palatalized velars
|
k´ |
g´ |
™´ |
x´ |
‘´ |
Labialized velars
|
kº |
gº |
™º |
xº |
Լ |
Uvulars
|
q |
|
ª |
Palatalized uvulars
|
|
|
ª´ |
Labialized uvulars
|
qº |
|
ªº |
Emphatic laryngeals |
‚ |
“ |
|
Labialized emphatic laryngeals
|
Ҽ |
º |
We establish the following correspondences between
modern languages and dialects:
PAT |
Bzyb |
Abzh |
Tap |
*p |
p |
p |
p |
*b |
b |
b |
b |
*© |
© |
© |
© |
*f |
f |
f |
f |
*w |
w |
w |
w |
*m |
m |
m |
m |
*t |
t |
t |
t |
*d |
d |
d |
d |
*® |
® |
® |
® |
*r |
r |
r |
r |
*l |
l |
l |
l |
*n |
n |
n |
n |
*tº |
tº [tp] |
tº [tp] |
‰º |
*dº |
dº [db] |
dº [db] |
¾º |
*®º |
®º [®©] |
®º [®©] |
Šº |
*c |
c |
c |
c |
*½ |
½ |
½ |
½ |
*ˆ |
ˆ |
ˆ |
ˆ |
*s |
s |
s |
s |
*z |
z |
z |
z |
*c´ |
c´ |
c |
c |
*½´ |
½´
|
½(¬z) |
½(¬z) |
*ˆ´ |
ˆ´ |
ˆ |
ˆ |
*s´ |
s´ |
s |
s |
*z´ |
z´ |
z |
z |
*cº |
c´¹ |
‰¹ |
‰º |
*½º |
½´¹ |
¾¹ |
¼º |
*ˆº |
ˆ´¹ |
й |
Šº |
*sº |
s´¹ |
«¹ |
Ǽ |
*zº |
z´¹ |
¼¹ |
¼º |
*‰ |
‰ |
‰ |
‰ |
*¾ |
¾ |
¾ |
¾ |
*Š |
Š |
Š |
Š |
*« |
« |
« |
« |
*¼ |
¼ |
¼ |
¼ |
*‰´ |
‰´ |
‰´ |
‰´ |
*¾´ |
¾´
|
¾´ |
¾´ |
*Š´ |
Š´ |
Š´ |
Š´ |
*«´ |
«´
|
«´ |
«´ |
*¼´ |
¼´
|
¼´ |
¼´ |
*j |
j |
j |
j |
*‰º |
f |
f |
c |
*¾º |
v |
v |
½ |
*Šº |
© |
© |
ˆ |
*Ǽ |
«¹ |
«¹ |
Ǽ |
*¼º |
¼¹ |
¼¹ |
¼º |
*k |
k |
k |
k |
*g |
g |
g |
g |
*™ |
™ |
™ |
™ |
*x |
x |
» |
» |
*‘ |
’ |
’ |
’ |
*k´ |
k´ |
k´ |
k´ |
*g´ |
g´ |
g´ |
g´ |
*™´ |
™´ |
™´ |
™´ |
*x´ |
»´
|
»´ |
»´ |
*‘´ |
’´ |
’´ |
’´ |
*kº |
kº |
kº |
kº |
*gº |
gº |
gº |
gº |
*™º |
™º |
™º |
™º |
*xº |
xº |
ȼ |
ȼ |
*Լ |
’º |
’º |
’º |
*q |
» |
» |
q |
*ª |
ª |
ª |
ª |
*ª´ |
ª´
|
ª´ |
ª´ |
*qº |
ȼ |
ȼ |
qº |
*ªº |
ªº |
ªº |
ªº |
*‚ |
ª |
ª |
‚ |
*“ |
“ |
“ |
“ |
* |
0(ƒ) |
0(ƒ) |
|
*Ҽ |
Ҽ |
Ҽ |
Ҽ |
*º |
º |
º |
º |
Comments.
1. Phonemes, that are reconstructed as hissing
labialized and hushing labialized, could be interpreted as hissing-hushing
labialized and hissing labialized respectively. Historically, however,
only the former have developed from hissing labialized consonants (the
rare PAT hushing labialized consonants go back only to PWC laterals, see
above), and we prefer the interpretation suggested above.
2. PAT had no distinction between velar and uvular
fricatives (it has arisen only in the Bzyb dialect as a result of the fricativization
q > »). In modern Abkhaz and Abaza dialects these phonemes have
a uvular articulation. This also concerns the Bzyb dialect with its opposition
x - » : the phoneme that we denote as x also has a uvular (or, at
least, back velar) place of articulation, and differs from the uvular »
primarily by the character of friction (flat friction slot by x as opposed
to round friction slot by »). In PAT we could also reconstruct uvular
rather than velar fricatives; historically, however, these phonemes go
back to PWC velars (and laterals, see above), while old uvular fricatives
in PAT have undergone laryngealization. Therefore, for PAT we prefer to
reconstruct velar fricatives (though it is certainly only one of the possibilities).
3. The PAT voiced laryngeal disappears in Abkhaz,
leaving behind a compensatory lengthening of the vowel (both and a give
ƒ in this case). The correlated labialized laryngeal, preserved in Abaza,
in Abkhaz is pronounced as a specific "emphatic-palatalized"
w (/w´I/). For the sake of uniformity we denote this specific Abkhaz
phoneme as º, using the same transcription as in Abaza.
As for vowels, we reconstruct the same bivocalic
system with the vowels and a for PAT, as for PWC in general. In Abkhaz
as well as in Abaza there is a rule according to which the vowel is dropped
in unaccented position (if the accent is being shifted to this unaccented
syllable, the vowel is restored). As a result of -reductions in long
words new clusters can arise, consisting of a large number of consonants;
the morphonological analysis, however, clearly shows that all such sequences
are recent and that in PAT we should reconstruct dropped vowels. Both in
Abkhaz and in Abaza there are some contexts in which the unaccented does
not disappear; however, since such contexts are rather few, and the operating
rules are rather complicated, we will not dwell on them here.
In some words Abkhaz dialects have clusters of
identical consonants, never divided by . This is mostly expressive vocabulary,
but it may in principle point to the appearance in Abkhaz of a new class
of tense consonants (geminates) (the old PWC tense consonants have been
lost in PAT, see above).
As a result of the complete simplification of consonant
clusters, the PAT root has acquired the structure CV (or CVCV, more rarely
CVCVCV). In modern languages this structure is preserved on the morphonological
level, but, as a result of -reduction, on the phonological level there
are already many roots with new consonant clusters.
For a short characteristics of the Abkhaz accent
system see above, page 193; for more detailed information see the works
[Äûáî 1977, 1989].
1.10.5. From PAK to modern Adyghe languages.
The PAK reconstruction was made by A. Kuipers (see
[Kuipers 1963]; later Soviet works - Áàëêàðîâ
1970 and Êóìàõîâ 1981 - have
little added to our knowledge of PAK). There are the following minor differences
(suggested by S. L. Nikolayev) between his reconstruction and ours:
1) On the basis of (rare) correspondences "Ad.
‰´: Kab. s´" and "Ad. ¾´: Kab. z´",
we reconstruct the PAK hissing-hushing affricates *c´ and *½´,
which are parallel to the hissing-hushing fricatives *s´, *z´
(the latter two are present in the reconstruction of A. Kuipers, too).
Consequently, the correspondence "Ad. s´·: Kab. s´·"
(according to A. Kuipers reflecting PAK *s´·) is interpreted
by us as the result of a uniform fricativization of the original PAK glottalized
hissing-hushing affricate *ˆ´.
2) On basis of the correspondence "Ad. ‘:
Kab. ¼" (also very rare) we reconstruct a fourth PAK lateral
phoneme *ž (on its origin see above). Consequently, instead of the lateral
glottalized fricative *›· (according to A. Kuipers) we reconstruct
a PAK lateral glottalized affricate *.
3) On basis of the correspondences "Ad. “:
Kab. »" and "Ad. ‘: Kab. z´", we reconstruct
two palatalized back fricatives *»´ and *‘´, not present
in the reconstruction of A. Kuipers (they are also very rare).
4) Instead of the fricative *s·º, we
reconstruct the affricate *ˆº; thus, glottalized fricatives are totally
eliminated from the PAK system (their secondary character is also clearly
seen in comparison with the evidence of other West-Caucasian languages,
see above).
5) On the other hand, instead of the glottalized
affricate ª of A. Kuipers we reconstruct the emphatic laryngeal *‚
(preserved with the same articulation in modern Adygh languages); as we
have seen above, though this laryngeal developed from an earlier uvular
consonant, it did not develop directly from *ª. The fact that this
consonant is rendered as ª in Ubykh loanwords, is irrelevant in this
case (because of the lack of emphatic laryngeals in Ubykh).
6) Instead of the initial h, reconstructed by A.
Kuipers on the basis of system considerations, we prefer to reconstruct
a zero beginning in PAK.
7) In bisyllabic roots of PAK we reconstruct two
possible places of accent with the following development of structures
in descendant languages:
PAK |
Ad |
Kab |
*Ca´Ca |
CƒC |
CƒCa |
*Ca´C |
CaC |
CaC |
*C´Ca |
CC |
CCa |
*C´C |
CC |
CC |
*CaCa´ |
CƒCa |
CƒCa |
*CaC´ |
CaC |
CaC |
*CCa´ |
CCa |
CCa |
*CC´ |
CC |
CC |
In Adyghe (Temirgoy) there is a rule, according
to which every unaccented final vowel is reduced; in Kabardian there is
a rule according to which every final is reduced, but final a is preserved.
It is possible that we will be able to reconstruct relevant accent oppositions
in monosyllabic morphemes as well (by analysing composita); however, this
has not yet been done.
Let us now give a short table of correspondences
between the Adyghe languages and dialects (for more detailed information
see the works [Kuipers 1963, Kumakhov 1981]). We will give the data of
the best described systems (Bzhedug, Temirgoy and Kabardian):
AK |
Bzhed |
Tem |
Kab |
*p |
p |
p |
p |
*p: |
p: |
p |
b |
*b |
b |
b |
b |
*© |
© |
© |
© |
*w |
w |
w |
w |
*m |
m |
m |
m |
*t |
t |
t |
t |
*t: |
t: |
t |
d |
*d |
d |
d |
d |
*® |
® |
® |
® |
*r |
r |
r |
r |
*n |
n |
n |
n |
*c |
c |
c |
c |
*c: |
c: |
c |
½ |
*½ |
½ |
½ |
½ |
*ˆ |
ˆ |
ˆ |
ˆ |
*s |
s |
s |
s |
*z |
z |
z |
z |
*cº |
c´º
|
c´º |
f |
*c:º |
c´:º |
c´º |
v |
*½º |
z´º
|
z´º |
v |
*ˆº |
s·´º
|
s·´º |
f· |
*sº |
s´º
|
s´º |
f |
*zº |
z´º
|
z´º |
v |
*c´(c´:) |
‰´(‰´:) |
‰´ |
s´ |
*½´
|
¾´
|
¾´
|
z´ |
*ˆ´ |
s·´
|
s·´
|
s·´ |
*s´ |
s´ |
s´ |
s´ |
*z´ |
z´ |
z´ |
z´ |
*‰ |
« |
« |
« |
*‰: |
‰: |
‰ |
¼ |
*Š |
Š |
Š |
s·´ |
*« |
« |
« |
s´ |
*«: |
«: |
« |
s´ |
*¼ |
¼ |
¼ |
z´ |
*‰´ |
«´
|
«´
|
« |
*‰´: |
‰´: |
‰´ |
¼ |
*¾´
|
¾´
|
¾´
|
¼ |
*Š´ |
Š´ |
Š´ |
s·´ |
*«´
|
«´
|
«´
|
s´ |
*«:´ |
«´:
|
«´
|
s´ |
*¼´
|
¼´
|
¼´
|
z´ |
*ž |
‘ |
‘ |
¼ |
* |
›· |
›· |
›· |
*› |
› |
› |
› |
*L |
L |
L |
L |
*k´ |
‰´ |
‰´ |
‰ |
*k´: |
‰´: |
‰´ |
¾ |
*g´ |
¾´
|
¾´
|
¾ |
*™´ |
Š´ |
Š´ |
Š |
*x |
x |
x |
x |
*‘ |
‘ |
‘ |
‘ |
*kº |
kº |
kº |
kº |
*k:º |
k:º |
kº |
gº |
*gº |
gº |
gº |
gº |
*™º |
™º |
™º |
™º |
*xº |
f |
f |
xº |
*‘´ |
‘ |
‘ |
z´ |
*q |
q |
q-,q: |
q |
*q: |
q: |
q: |
ª |
*» |
» |
» |
» |
*’ |
’ |
’ |
’ |
*»´
|
“ |
“ |
» |
*qº |
qº |
qº-,q:º |
qº |
*q:º |
q:º |
q:º |
ªº |
*ȼ |
ȼ
|
ȼ |
ȼ |
*’º |
’º |
’º |
’º |
*‚ |
‚ |
‚ |
‚ |
*“ |
“ |
“ |
“ |
|