 |
<< Home Page << Articles and Books
INTRODUCTION
A description of the comparative phonology
of the North Caucasian languages.
The family of North Caucasian languages is a distinct
white spot on the linguistic map of the Old World. Despite the presence
of a number of quite valuable works (starting with those of N. S. Trubetskoy
[Trubetskoy 1922, 1926, 1929, 1930, 1931], then - Y. A. Bokarev, [Bokarev
1961, 1981], T. Gudava [Gudava 1964, 1979], B. Gigineyshvili [Gigineyshvili
1977], A. Kuipers [Kuipers 1963, 1975] and others), we can certainly state
that up to the present there is no common notion of the original phonologic
structure of Proto-North-Caucasian. This is the result of several factors
(not the least of which is the extreme complexity of phonetic and phonological
systems of the regarded languages), but the main reason seems to be the
lack of any ancient written tradition of the North Caucasian languages.
Until recently the matter was aggravated by insufficient description of
phonetic, morphological and lexical systems of many North Caucasian languages,
but now this gap may be considered virtually filled (thanks to the active
work of researchers during the last twenty years, and mainly to the systematic
field research of the Department of Structural and Applied Linguistics
of the Moscow University under the guidance of A. Y. Kibrik and S. V. Kodzasov
who kindly provided the authors of this work with the expedition materials
concerning a number of little known languages (published later as [Kibrik-Kodzasov
1988, 1990]).
The absence of ancient languages - a natural resource
for reconstruction - can be compensated for in two ways. The first method
is to choose a number of modern languages as the basis for reconstructing
the protolanguage of the whole family; the data from other languages are
included in the already discovered rows of correspondences afterwards.
This method is certainly accurate at the first stage of research, and is
therefore used in the works of N. S. Trubetskoy, Y. A. Bokarev and B. Gigineyshvili.
But more preferable - especially if the languages of the family are well
studied - would be another method; namely, the reconstruction (as full
and adequate as possible) of several intermediate protolanguages and, only
afterwards, of the initial system. Here intermediate protolanguages stand
for the missing old languages; besides, since in this case the data of
all the languages are considered, the reconstructed state of the language
will inevitably be more trustworthy than in the first case - assuming that
one uses correct methods of reconstruction.
This work uses the following intermediate reconstructions:
1) Proto-West-Caucasian (PWC). The proper West Caucasian
reconstruction is based on the reconstruction of two intermediate protolanguages:
Proto-Abkhaz-Tapant (PAT) and Proto-Adyghe-Kabardian (PAK), with due regard
for the data of the third branch of the West Caucasian languages, Ubykh.
The reconstruction of PWC that is used in this work was completed by S.
A. Starostin on the basis of his own reconstruction of PAT (with account
of available works, those of K. V. Lomtatidze [Lomtatidze 1944, 1964, 1976]
in particular), and of A. Kuipers' reconstruction of PAK (see [Kuipers
1963]).
2) Proto-Nakh (PN). The reconstruction of the PN
phonologic system has been done by S. L. Nikolaev, with account of the
work of D. Imnayshvili [Imnayshvili 1977].
3) Proto-Andian (PA). While reconstructing the PA
system we based our work completely upon the excellent reconstruction of
Proto-Andian consonantism, completed by T. Gudava [Gudava 1964]. Single
corrections and the reconstruction of PA vocalism were made by S. L. Nikolaev.
4) Proto-Tsezian (PTs). The reconstruction of the
PTs phonologic system was completed by S. L. Nikolaev and was based on
the reconstruction of two intermediate protolanguages: the Proto-Tsezian-Khvarshi
(PTsKh) and the Proto-Gunzib-Bezhta (PGB), also done by S. L. Nikolaev.
The author only partly used the correspondences of Y. A. Bokarev's classic
work [Bokarev 1959], and his reconstruction seriously differs from the
PTs reconstruction suggested in the posthumous edition of the work of T.
Gudava [Gudava 1979].
5) Proto-Dargwa (PD). The initial reconstruction
of the Proto-Dargwa system was done by M. Epshtein on the basis of field
materials, collected and prepared by I. O. Olovyannikova during the Caucasian
expeditions of the Department of Structural and Applied Linguistics of
the Moscow University. This work uses this reconstruction (with some corrections
by S. L. Nikolaev).
6) Proto-Lezghian (PL). The reconstruction of the
Proto-Lezghian system has been completely done by S. A. Starostin. Its
main issues and differences from the later published reconstruction of
B. B. Talibov [Talibov 1980] are related below (see pp. 122-179); see also
[Alekseyev 1985].
7) Proto-East-Caucasian (PEC). The reconstruction
of the PEC phonologic system has been accomplished jointly by the authors
of this work on the basis of comparison of the above mentioned protolanguages
and also of three modern languages - Lak, Avar and Khinalug - that are
taxonomically outside the listed genetic units. Some aspects of the PEC
reconstruction resemble or coincide with the results of the reconstructions
of N. S. Trubetskoy, E. A. Bokarev and B. K. Gigineyshvili, but the number
of differences surpasses the number of resemblances (not mentioning the
fact that quite a lot of aspects, such as the reconstruction of vocalism
or of the laryngeal system, are not regarded at all by the authors named
above).
While comparing the reconstructed PEC and PWC systems
it became clear that the second system can be almost completely deduced
from the first (see below for some exceptions from this rule). Thus the
finally obtained Proto-North-Caucasian (PNC) phonologic system virtually
coincides with the PEC, at least on today's level of our knowledge. Therefore,
for practical purposes, we shall operate below with the WC languages as
if they were part of the East Caucasian family (though this is surely wrong
from a taxonomic point of view). Already after the authors completed the
PNC reconstruction, there appeared new evidence for the fact that the Hatti
and the Hurro-Urartian languages, localised in ancient Asia Minor, are
related to the North Caucasian language family (see the works [Ardzinba
1979, Ivanov 1985, Diakonoff-Starostin 1986]). However, we do not use their
evidence in this work: because of its fragmentation they still do not offer
much for the PNC reconstruction.
Of course, the detailed account of the reconstruction
of all intermediate protolanguages mentioned above could not fit within
the limits of one book (the manuscript of the PL reconstruction alone takes
about 500 typewritten pages). Within the limits of this work we plan to
give only the tables of phonetic correspondences with a minimum of necessary
commentary.
1. Phonetic tables.
1.1. From PNC to the intermediate (proto)languages.
Below we will inspect the reflexes of the PNC phonemes
in PEC (and further in PN, Avar, PA, PTs, Lak, PD, Khinalugh and PL) and
in PWC. The data of Avar, Lak and Khinalugh are given in their modern shape
(for Proto-Avar and Proto-Lak it would also be possible to give the forms,
reconstructed on the basis of modern dialects, but the dialects of Avar
and Lak respectively form very compact genetic unities, and such a reconstruction
would not be very informative).
1.1.1. Consonantism
For PNC the following system of consonants is reconstructed:
|
Voiceless occlusives |
Voiced occlusives |
Glottalized occlusives |
Voiceless fricatives |
Voiced fricatives |
Resonants |
Nasal resonants |
Glides |
Labials |
p |
b |
© |
f |
|
w |
m |
uH |
Dentals |
t |
d |
® |
|
|
r |
n |
j |
Hissing |
c |
½ |
ˆ |
s |
z |
|
|
|
Hushing |
‰ |
¾ |
Š |
« |
¼ |
|
|
|
Palatal (hissing-hushing) |
c´ |
½´ |
ˆ´ |
s´ |
z´ |
|
|
|
Lateral |
œ |
ž |
|
› |
|
l, š |
|
|
Velar |
k |
g |
™ |
x |
|
|
|
|
Uvular |
q |
G |
ª |
» |
’ |
|
|
|
Laryngeals |
|
|
€ |
h |
” |
|
|
|
Emphatic laryngeals |
|
|
‚ |
“ |
|
|
|
|
Two more very rare voiced fricatives are reconstructed
for PEC (lateral L and velar ‘), as well as the supposedly interdental
fricatives ± and ±:. These phonemes have no correspondences in PWC, and
their existence in PNC is dubious. In fact, it is possible phonologically
to treat *w, *r and *l as voiced fricatives, and *uÍ, *j, *š respectively
- as resonants (thus avoiding the reconstruction of glides altogether).
The typical features of the PNC consonantism were:
a) the ability of all consonants except the labials
and resonants to be combined with the following resonant w. We do not regard
these combinations on the PNC level as labialized phonemes; this would
lead to postulating too many (a typologically unlikely number) phonemes
for PNC. However, since in some descendant languages the 'w' combinations
develop specifically and, as a rule, are transformed into monophonemic
sequences, it seems convenient to regard them in the tables together with
simple phonemes.
b) the presence in affricate series (hushing, hissing,
palatal, lateral, as well as velar and uvular) of the so-called "geminates",
which will be marked below by underlining respective phonemes (c_, ‰_´,
g_, and so on). For these consonants on the PNC level the monophonemic
treatment is also inconvenient (for the same reason as for the labialized
ones); moreover, there are reasons to suppose that the opposition of "geminated"
and "nongeminated" consonants initially had a prosodic nature (see below).
The PNC geminates will also be placed in the tables together with simple
phonemes, because they regularly give monophonemic reflexes in descendendant
languages.
In the tables hyphens mark reflexes in different
positions (C- in the beginning, -C- in the middle, -C in the end); the
sign / divides motivatedly split reflexes (i. e. different reflexes of
the same phoneme, whose appearance is caused by factors known and explained
in the comments); the sign ¬ divides unmotivatedly split reflexes (i. e.
different reflexes of the same phoneme, whose appearance is caused by factors
yet unknown).
1.1.2. Labial consonants.
PNC |
PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khi |
PWC |
*p |
*p |
*p |
*p |
p |
*p |
p |
*p |
*p |
p |
*p/p: |
*b |
*b |
*b |
*b |
b |
*b |
b/p: |
*b/p: |
*b¬p: |
b¬p: |
*b/p: |
*© |
*© |
*b-¬p-, |
*b |
b |
*b-, |
© |
*©¬b |
*© |
©-,b |
*b-,-©- |
|
|
*-©-¬-b- |
|
|
-©- |
|
|
/-p:- |
*f |
*f |
*“¬» |
*xº¬h |
x¬» |
*»¬h |
h¬» |
*x:¬»: |
*»:º |
*xº |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
¬»º |
*f_ |
*f_ |
*“¬p» |
*«: |
«: |
*›:¬»: |
x:º¬»: |
*x |
*›:º |
px- |
*f¬xº |
*uÍ |
*v |
*w |
*w |
w |
*w |
w |
*w |
*uÍ |
w¬j |
*w¬j |
*w |
*w |
*b |
*b |
b |
*b |
b-,w |
*b |
*w |
w¬0 |
*w¬0 |
*m |
*m |
*m |
*m |
m |
*m |
m |
*m |
*m |
m |
*m |
Notes.
In the labial series, as in all the others (except
the laryngeals), we reconstruct a triple opposition "voiceless (lax)":
"voiced (tense)" : "glottalized" in the subsystem of occlusives. In Lak,
Dargwa and (judging by the available examples) Khinalugh the initial *b
is represented by p: most often if there is no adjacent voiced or glottalized
occlusive, and by b in other cases. The phoneme *b in PL is rather rare
and represents *b only in expressive forms (in other cases *p:).
The postulation of labial fricatives f and f_ for
PNC and PEC causes much doubt for us, first of all because of rather unsystematic
reflexes in descendant languages, where the unmotivated splitting of reflexes
is often observed. However, the presence of some semantically quite trustworthy
and widespread roots among the words with the regarded correspondences
does not allow presently to consider these rows occasional and unessential.
We may deal here with the result of phonologisation of some old positional
distinctions in descendant languages, whose general principle is hard to
determine because of the lack of material.
The opposition *uÍ-*w is completely parallel to
that of *j-*r (see below), though, unlike *j, the phoneme *uÍ is reconstructed
only in pronominal and grammatical morphemes (for example, in the 2nd pers.
sing. pronoun, see p. 1014-1015). It is, however, not quite clear in which
row one should reconstruct *uÍ (a glide), and in which - *w (a resonant).
We tentatively reconstruct *w for the more frequent phoneme (with w/b reflexes),
and *uÍ - for the other row of correspondences (modern languages do not
as a rule distinguish between /uÍ/ and /w/).
In the above table we only list the reflexes of
the resonants *w and *m in initial and medial positions without the combinations
with other consonants; the behaviour of such combinations will be specially
considered below (see pp. 62-72). But there is one more type of cases,
namely the modification of initial *w, *m and *b under the influence of
following syllable-final resonants *n, *m and *l. One may note that in
nominal NC roots variations of initial m,w,n and b occur very frequently.
These variations up to now were either not explained at all, or were explained
by the interchange of "petrified" class markers. However, after serious
examination, all of them can be reduced to a comparatively small number
of rows of correspondences that agree well with the reconstruction of resonants
in the medial consonant clusters (see below, pp. 62-72). The general system
of correspondences looks like this:
PNC,PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khi |
PWC |
*w(..n) |
*m- |
*m¬b- |
m¬b- |
*m¬b- |
b- |
*b- |
*w- |
w¬m- |
*m¬0- |
*b(..n) |
*b- |
*m¬b- |
m- |
*m- |
m- |
*m- |
*m- |
m- |
*b-¬m- |
*w(..m) |
*b- |
*b- |
m- |
*b- |
b- |
*b- |
*w- |
w- |
*m-¬0- |
*b(..m) |
*b- |
*b- |
m- |
*b- |
b- |
*m- |
*m- |
m- |
*b-¬m- |
*w(..l) |
*b- |
*m- |
b- |
*m¬b- |
b- |
*m- |
*w- |
w- |
*b- |
*b(..l) |
*b- |
*m- |
b- |
*m¬b- |
b- |
*m- |
*m- |
m- |
*b-¬m- |
*m(..n) |
*n- |
*m¬n- |
m¬n- |
*m- |
m- |
*m- |
*m- |
m- |
*b-¬m- |
It is also necessary to make some more particular
remarks about the behaviour of labial consonants in separate languages:
1) Lak regularly drops initial syllables with nasal
m- (and also with b- < *w-) and subsequent narrow vowels i, u (about
the similar process in Lezghian see below, page 127).
2) PWC regularly splits the reflexes of PNC voiceless
occlusives and affricates. The general rule of distribution is as follows:
before short PNC vowels PWC preserves (with proper modifications) the initial
opposition of laryngeal features (voicelessness, voice, glottalisation),
but before long PNC vowels (on the reconstruction of long vowels see below,
p. 72ff.) a special series of PWC tense (so-called "preruptive") consonants
takes the place of initial voiced, voiceless and glottalized consonants.
This special feature of the PWC reflexation seems
to be connected with the general process of shifting the quality and quantity
vowel features onto the preceding consonants that occurred in PWC (and
led to an extraordinary expansion of the consonant system and to a corresponding
extraordinary reduction of the vowel system in PWC). This process is best
seen in the subsystem of affricates; in the explosive (labial and dental)
series only the intensification of consonants mentioned above happens regularly;
the shift of vowel quality features to consonants is regularly seen only
in PWC monoconsonantic roots.
3) Resonant consonants reconstructed for PNC can
either be preserved or disappear in PWC, though the latter happens more
often. The reasons for this process (that has not afflicted only the resonant
*m, regularly preserved in PWC except in middle position in consonant combinations)
are not quite clear yet. However, we think the suggestion of a secondary
loss of resonants in PWC is more trustworthy than the alternative suggestion
of a secondary appearance of different resonants (in the beginning and
in the end of a root) in PEC. It is this circumstance (also considering
the prevalence of roots with one obstruent and one or more resonant consonants
in PNC; on the structure of the root see below) that has caused the prevalence
of monoconsonantal roots in PWC. Among the consonants listed above, the
process of the loss of resonants has also affected the resonant *w.
4) Besides the processes listed above, we must also
mention the denasalisation *m- >*b- that regularly happens in PWC before
the following syllable-final liquid *r and *l.
1.1.3. Dental consonants.
PNC |
PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*t |
*t |
*t |
*t |
t |
*t |
t |
*t |
*t |
t |
*t/*t: |
*d |
*d |
*d |
*d |
d |
*d |
t:¬d |
*d-,t: |
*t:¬*d |
d¬t: |
*d/*t: |
*® |
*® |
*® |
*® |
® |
*® |
® |
*® |
*® |
® |
*®/*t: |
Dental consonants in combination with w.
PNC |
PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*tw |
*tw |
*t |
*t(w) |
t |
*t(w) |
t |
*t |
*t(w) |
t |
*t(w) |
*dw |
*dw |
*t |
*d(w) |
d |
*d |
t:-,d |
*t:-,d |
*t:(º) |
d |
*t(w)/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
¬*d(w) |
|
|
*t:(º) |
*®w |
*®w |
*® |
*®(w) |
® |
*®(w) |
® |
*® |
*®(w) |
® |
*®(w)/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*t:(º) |
Dental resonants and glides.
PNC |
PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*j |
*j |
*j-,0 |
*€-,j |
€-,0 |
*€-,0 |
€-,0 |
*€-,0 |
*j |
€-,0 |
*j¬0 |
*r |
*r |
*d-,r |
*r |
r |
*r |
*r |
*d-,r |
*j-,r |
r/z |
*r¬0 |
*n |
*n |
*n |
*n |
n |
*n |
*n |
*n |
*n |
n |
*n¬0 |
Comments.
1)The opposition of voiced and voiceless dentals
is generally reliably reconstructed for PEC and PNC, though there are some
untrivial moments in the development of voiced consonants in descendant
languages (particularly the devoicing *dw > t in Nakh and in PWC).
In Lak d is generally met in intervocal position
as a reflex of *dw as well as in expressive and reduplicated roots; in
other cases we have a normal reflex *d > t:. We must also note that many
modern dialects have further changed -d- to -r-, and the variation -d-/-r-
is frequently met in literary Lak.
In PL the voiced reflex *d is also for the most
part attested in expressive forms. On the development of *d in medial clusters
see below.
2) Some words in EC languages reveal a peculiar
variation of t-type and s-type reflexes. The following correspondences
are established: a) PN *-t-, Av., PA *-t-, Lak. -s-, PD *-s-, PL *-t-;
b) PN *-t-, PA *H-, s:, Av. -€-, PT *s:-,-®-, Lak. -t:-, PD *H-,s, PL *€-,
t:. In these series we may tentatively reconstruct interdental fricatives
*± and *±_. Their PNC antiquity is dubious (first of all, because of the
lack of WC parallels); some cases are probably loanwords in PEC.
3) Concerning the behaviour of dentals (explosives
and resonants) in PWC see comments 2 and 3 on page 43.
4) It is necessary to make a few general notes on
the behaviour of labialized consonants in descendant languages. Generally
labialization is better preserved by back consonants (see below); as for
front ones, they often reveal a tendency to delabialize. Delabialization
is most often caused by position (vocalic environment), but cases with
unmotivated delabialization are not unusual either. In this work it is
not possible to go over the details of the behaviour of labialized consonants
in individual languages, and we use the designation C(w) to indicate that
labialization is generally preserved, but can disappear, depending on the
position within the word. We must also say that among the NC subgroups
labialization has completely disappeared only in PN (though having left
some traces in a specific development of originally labialized consonants.)
5) Initial resonants *j, *r and *n (just as the
labials *w, *m, see above) modify their reflexes in different languages
if following syllable-final resonants are present. The general system of
correspondences in this case looks like this:
PNC,PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*j(..r) |
*d- |
*r- |
r- |
*r- |
d-(¬€-) |
*€- |
*j- |
€- |
*0- |
*j(..n) |
*j- |
*€- |
€-(-) |
*€- |
|
*€- |
*j- |
€- |
*j-¬0- |
*j(..l) |
|
*r- |
r- |
*€- |
l- |
*l- |
*j- |
€- |
*r(..n) |
*d- |
*r- |
n- |
*r- |
n- |
*n- |
*j- |
€- |
*r- |
*j(..m) |
*j- |
*€- |
€- |
*€-¬j- |
m-¬n- |
*€- |
*j- |
€- |
*j-¬0- |
*r(..m) |
*d- |
*r- |
n- |
*r- |
n- |
*d- |
*j- |
*0- |
*n(..m) |
*m- |
*n- |
n- |
*n- |
n- |
*n- |
*n- |
n- |
*0- |
It must be stated that roots with resonant combinations
*r(..r), *n(..l), *r(..l), *n(..n) are not attested; in roots with the
combination *n(..r) the initial *n- behaves normally (i. e. it is always
preserved as n-). Roots with initial dental resonants are more rare than
roots with initial labial resonants (this explains the lack of some types
of combinations and also some gaps in reflexes).
1.1.4. Hissing consonants.
PNC |
PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*c |
*c |
*c |
*c |
c |
*s: |
c |
*c |
*s-,c |
c |
*s(¬z)/*c: |
|
(*Ntt) |
*½ |
*½ |
*½ |
*z |
z |
*s |
s:¬c:, |
*c: |
*c:¬z |
c:,Rz |
*½¬z/*c: |
|
(*Ntt) |
|
|
|
Rz |
*ˆ |
*ˆ |
*ˆ |
*ˆ |
ˆ |
*ˆ |
ˆ |
*ˆ |
*ˆ |
ˆ,-z |
*ˆ¬z/*c: |
|
(*N®®) |
*s |
*s |
*s |
*s |
s |
*z(*z:) |
s |
*s |
*s |
s(-z?) |
*s |
*z |
*z |
*s |
*d |
d |
*d |
t: |
*d |
*z |
z |
*s |
Hissing consonants in combination with -w-.
PNC |
PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*cw |
*cw |
*‰,R« |
*s |
c |
*z |
c |
*s:-, |
*s:(º)-, |
ps-¬ |
*«º/c:º |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
s¬s: |
s(º) |
p«-,c: |
*½w |
*½w |
*d-,¾ |
*z |
z |
*s |
z |
*½ |
*c:º |
|
*½º(¬zº) |
*ˆw |
*ˆw |
*®-, |
*ˆ |
ˆ |
*ˆ |
ˆ |
*ˆ |
*ˆ(º) |
-z |
*ˆ(º)¬*z(º)/ |
|
|
Š,R« |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*c:(º) |
*sw |
*sw |
*« |
*s(º) |
s |
*z |
s(º) |
*s: |
*s:(º) |
s |
*«(º)¬¼(º) |
Hissing "geminates".
PNC |
PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*c_ |
*c_ |
*c |
*c: |
c: |
*s |
s:¬c: |
*c: |
*c,Rc: |
c |
*c(¬z) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/c: |
*c_w |
*c_w |
(*st) |
*s:(º) |
c: |
*s:¹*s |
s: |
*s |
*s: |
*¼º |
*½_ |
*½_ |
*ˆ |
*ˆ: |
ˆ: |
*c |
ˆ |
*z |
*ˆ: |
ˆ |
*ˆ¬z |
|
|
(*Ntt) |
*½_w |
*½_w |
*®-,Š |
*ˆ:(º) |
ˆ:(º) |
*c(º) |
ˆ |
*z |
*ˆ:º |
ˆ |
*ˆ(º) |
*ˆ_ |
*ˆ_ |
*ˆ |
*ˆ: |
ˆ: |
*c¬ˆ |
ˆ-¬c:-, |
*ˆ, |
*ˆ,Rc: |
ˆ |
*ˆ¬z |
|
|
(Ntt) |
|
|
|
ˆ,Rz |
Rc: |
*ˆ_w |
*ˆ_w |
*t-(?), |
*ˆ:(º) |
ˆ:(º) |
*c¬ˆ |
ˆ(¬c:-) |
*c:-, |
*ˆ(º) |
*ˆ(º) |
|
|
Š,R« |
|
|
|
|
ˆ |
¬z(º) |
*s_ |
*s_ |
*s |
*s: |
s: |
*s: |
s: |
*s: |
*s: |
s(¬z?) |
*s |
*s_w |
*s_w |
*« |
*s:(º) |
s: |
*s: |
s(º) |
*s: |
*s:(º) |
*sº |
Comments.
1) Not all rows of correspondences listed above
(and therefore the reconstructed protoforms) are established with equal
reliability. For example, the voiced fricative *z is reconstructed only
in the 1st person singular pronoun (however, this reconstruction seems
valid to us because voiced fricatives of other series are reconstructed
in some other pronominal roots as well). The combination *zw is not reconstructed
at all for PNC; as for PEC, we can talk about the reconstruction of *zw
only in onomatopoeic roots.
However, in general the system of reconstructed
phonemes and combinations suggested above seems to explain the present
correspondences more adequately than the reconstructions suggested before
(a five-affricate and three-fricative system of E. A. Bokarev or a five-affricate
and two-fricative system of B. K. Gigineyshvili can not explain the whole
variety of NC languages correspondences).
Let us go over some details of reflexes of hissing
sounds in separate subgroups.
2) PN. In PN, as the table shows, hissing sounds
are preserved as they are, but are transformed if a -w- follows. The disappearing
labialization in this case transforms hissing sounds into hushing, while
initial voiced and glottalized labialized affricates develop into dental
explosives. We must state that in particular cases (e.g. if a labial resonant
is present before the affricate) the delabialization could have occurred
even before the described processes; in such cases PN has the reflexes
of ordinary hissing sounds.
Other processes were also active in PN that have
seriously complicated the picture of the reflexation of hissing sounds.
First, desaffrication ‰,Š > « occurred in medial combinations with preceding
liquid resonants (it is significant that such desaffrication is absent
in the hushing series, see below, and therefore occurred in PN even before
the transformation of labialized hissing sounds). Second, geminated tt
(®®) appeared in the place of different PEC hissing affricates in medial
combinations with preceding nasal resonants (the nasals themselves disappear
in this case). It must be stated that PN *tt (®®) cannot in principle be
explained (as, e.g., by N.S.Trubetskoy, see [Trubetskoy 1930]) as a reflex
of a single PEC (PNC) phoneme, because this PN cluster is simultaneously
present in several rows of correspondences. PN reflects in the same way
(as tt) the PEC geminates *ˆ_ and *½_ after the liquid *l; in these cases
we must probably suggest a preliminary development *lC > *nC. A special
feature of PN reflexation is the fact that the development *C > tt never
happens if a -w- follows (in all these cases we have normal PN hushing
reflexes).
Most difficult to explain are cases of PN reflecting
PEC hissing (and hissing-hushing, see below) affricates and fricatives
as a *st (*s®) cluster (both in initial and non-initial positions), not
included in the table above. The simplest solution would be the reconstruction
of PEC combinations like *st, that were preserved in PN, but lost in other
languages. However, this solution seems to be wrong - basically because
of the fact that the *st (*s®) reflex is also observed in place of PEC
fricatives.
One may note that in all cases where we can reconstruct
*j and a sibilant (not hushing) affricate or fricative within one root,
PN has a *st (s®) reflex. Thus one can formulate a rule, according to which
all hissing and hissing-hushing (but not hushing!) phonemes develop into
*st-clusters in PN (probably as a result of distant palatalization) after
or before a *j. In some cases we may therefore reconstruct medial clusters
like *-jc- or *-js- on Nakh evidence alone.
The second type of cases, where the development
*C > *st(*s®) occurs, are the combinations of hissing affricates with the
preceding resonant -l-, perhaps, also through the stage *lC > jC > st(s®).
However, we know some cases in which original combinations like *lC preserve
the liquid (as -r-) in PN. In general, this question needs further elaboration.
One should finally note that there is no clear-cut
distinction between *st and *s® in PN: the distinction is preserved only
in Batsbi, and there is considerable variation between st and s® there,
according to existing sources. We may suppose that originally the distinction
between *st and *s® was as solid as that between *t and *®, but it was
impaired already on the PN level.
3) Andi-Avar-Tsezian languages. Here it is necessary
to pay attention to the fricativization of labialized *cw and *c_w in PA
(in this respect Andian languages differ seriously from Avar, and usually
this difference is not regarded with due attention.) The other processes
that have changed the subsystem of hissing consonants in Avar-Andian languages
are quite simple (the development *½ > z , *c_ > c:; the merger of glottalized
and voiced geminates in *ˆ:). In PTs there occurred a further deglottalization
*ˆ: > *c:> c and fricativization of all non-glottalized affricates that
led to an untrivial PTs system of fricative distinctions *s - *s: - *z
- *z: (for their reflexes in individual languages see below, page 112).
4) Lak, PD and PL. First of all we must note a positional
development *ˆ_ > *c: (*½) in combinations with preceding medial resonants
that is common for all three of these subgroups. The row of correspondences
"PL *c: : PD *c: : Lak. z : Av., PA *ˆ:", usually serving as a basis for
reconstructing PEC voiced *½ (see [Trubetskoy 1930, Bokarev 1961 et al.]),
thus appears to be in complementary distribution with the row of correspondences
"PL, PD, Lak *ˆ : Av., PA *ˆ:" (usually ignored). It must be emphasized
that in our reconstruction we clearly distinguish the PEC (and PNC) phoneme
*½ (that does not give glottalized reflexes) and the geminates *ˆ_ and
*½_ that often give glottalized reflexes.
It is worth noting that Khinalug, in its reflexation
of PEC *ˆ_, is clearly connected with Western Daghestan languages (*ˆ_
is always reflected as ˆ, in post-resonant positions too), and not with
Lezghian, to which it is often attributed.
5) PWC. In the table we have listed PWC reflexes
of PNC hissing phonemes before non-front PNC vowels. Before original front
vowels PWC regularly reveals palatalized affricates and fricatives; this
is the consequence of the basic rule active in PWC, concerning the shift
of quantitative and qualitative vocalic features to preceding consonants.
The quantitative aspect of this rule in PWC led to the appearance of a
tense ("preruptive") *c: (*c:º) reflecting all PNC hissing affricates before
originally long vowels. It is quite possible that hissing fricatives could
also become tense (in the same position) in PWC; but within PWC the evidence
for reconstructing the distinction *s - *s: is still missing (see below
on the PWC reconstruction).
One can also pay attention to the unmotivated variation
of voice/voicelessness (and also glottalization) in some PWC reflexes.
The reasons for a secondary voicing in PWC are not clear yet (it could
be possibly connected with the fall of laryngeals in PWC).
1.1.5. Hushing consonants.
PNC |
PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*‰ |
*‰ |
*‰ |
*‰ |
‰ |
*‰ |
‰ |
*‰ |
*‰ |
‰ |
*‰¬¾ |
*¾ |
*¾ |
*¾ |
*¼ |
¼ |
*¼-,‰,R¼ |
¼¬‰: |
*¼¬‰: |
*‰: |
¼ |
*¼¬¾/‰: |
*Š |
*Š |
*Š |
*Š |
Š |
*Š |
Š |
*Š |
*Š |
Š |
*Š (¬‰) |
*« |
*« |
*« |
*« |
s |
*¼ |
« |
*« |
*« |
|
(*«) |
*¼ |
*¼ |
|
*«: |
¼ |
|
¼ |
|
*¾ |
j/« |
*« |
Hushing consonants in combination with -w-.
PNC |
PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*‰w |
*‰w |
*‰ |
*‰(º) |
‰ |
*‰ |
‰(º) |
*‰ |
*«(º) |
p«-¬‰ |
*‰º/‰:º |
*¾w |
*¾w |
*¾ |
*¼ |
¼ |
*¼:(º), |
‰:¬«: |
*¼ |
*‰:(º) |
|
*¼(º) |
|
|
|
|
|
‰,R¼(º) |
*Šw |
*Šw |
*«-, |
*‰(º) |
‰(º) |
*t(º)-, |
Š |
*Š |
*Š(º) |
|
*Š(º)¬ |
|
|
Š |
|
|
‰(º) |
|
|
|
|
¾(º) |
*«w |
*«w |
*« |
*«(º) |
s/x |
*¼¹¼: |
«(º) |
*«: |
*«:(º) |
« |
*«(º) |
Hushing "geminates".
PNC |
PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*‰_ |
*‰_ |
*‰ |
*«: |
«: |
*«¹«: |
«:¬‰: |
*«: |
*‰:¬«: |
«(?) |
*‰_w |
*‰_w |
*‰ |
*‰(º) |
‰: |
*«¹«: |
«:¬‰: |
*‰ |
*‰º |
|
*‰(º) |
*¾_ |
*¾_ |
*Š |
*Š: |
Š:¬ˆ: |
*‰ |
Š |
*‰: |
*Š: |
¼(?) |
*¼ |
*¾_w |
*¾_w |
|
*Š: |
Š: |
|
Š |
|
*‰:º |
*Š_ |
*Š_ |
*Š |
*Š: |
Š: |
*‰¬Š |
(R)¼ |
|
*Š,R‰: |
Š |
*Š_w |
*Š_w |
*« |
*ˆ:(º) |
Š:(º) |
*‰- |
Š |
*Š |
*Šº |
|
*Ь¾/‰:º |
|
|
|
¬Š: |
*«_ |
*«_ |
*« |
*«: |
«: |
*«: |
«: |
*«: |
*«: |
|
*«/«: |
*«_w |
*«_w |
*« |
*«:(º) |
«:(º) |
*«¹«: |
«: |
*«:¬« |
*«(º) |
« |
*«(w) |
Comments.
1) Hushing phonemes are generally more rare than
the hissing ones. Therefore here we observe somewhat more gaps in correspondences.
The voiced fricative *¼ is reconstructed only for one root - the 1st pers.
pl. excl. pronoun (see above on the reconstruction of *z in the 1st pers.
sg. pronoun). The reconstruction of the PNC combination *¼w is also rather
dubious.
2) In PN the hushing sounds are generally reflected
more uniformly than the hissing ones: in all cases hushing reflexes are
present. We must note a specific reflex of the labialized *Šw (in initial
position) and *Š_w as a hushing fricative *«. It is important that hushing
sounds never yield the PN *tt or *st reflexes that are so typical for the
system of hissing affricates and fricatives.
3) In Andi-Avar we must notice a specific reflexation
of the "geminate" ‰_ as a fricative *«:, as well as variations between
reflexes *Š: and ˆ: in the place of PEC geminates *¾_ and *Š_. In Avar
we also see the complementary distribution of s and x reflexes in the place
of a common Avar-Andian lax fricative *«; x - in front of i, s in other
cases (in details see [Starostin 1987, 448-450]).
4) In PTs hushing fricatives are generally reflected
in a manner similar to that of the hissing ones (see above); but the reflexation
of affricates is quite different. The most serious difference is the lack
of fricativization of the affricate *‰ (and, in some positions, *¾) that
led to their merger with the reflexes of "geminates" *¾_ and *Š_. We must
also note a very specific PTs reflex of the initial labialized *Šw > ®(º)
(such a desaffrication is unusual for Daghestan languages).
5) In Eastern Daghestan languages the reflexation
of hushing sounds is generally similar to that of hissing ones (also as
far as concerns the development of the glottalized "geminate" *Š_), though
there are some minor differences (for example, in the subsystem of fricatives).
6) The development of hushing consonants in PWC
is typologically similar to their development in PTs (neither family has
fricativized the affricate *‰, though the fricativization of the hissing
*c is present). In other respects the development of hushing sounds in
PWC is characterised by standard features (the appearance of palatalized
hushing sounds before original front vowels, strenghthening before initially
long vowels). As in other local series, there is a variation of voice/glottalization
in reflexes of originally glottalized consonants, as well as (more rarely)
of voice/voicelessness in the reflexes of initially voiceless (lax) consonants.
It must be stated that PWC hushing consonants are more often subject to
the process of secondary delabialization than consonants of other local
series.
In some cases we have an unexpected affricate reflex
in PWC where PEC has fricatives. It is not to be excluded that this reflex
must be explained by a fusion of a fricative with the dental derivational
prefix *d-(*t-), that in PWC could probably be attached to nominal stems.
1.1.6. Palatal (hissing-hushing) consonants.
PNC |
PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*c´ |
*c´ |
*c |
*‰ |
‰ |
*«:(¬-s:-) |
‰ |
*c |
*‰ |
‰ |
*‰/‰:(¬c:) |
*½´ |
*½´ |
*½(Ntt) |
*¼ |
¼ |
*¼:-,« |
z-,«:¬‰: |
*c: |
*‰:(¬¼) |
‰: |
*z |
*ˆ´ |
*ˆ´ |
*ˆ-, |
*Š |
Š |
*ˆ/Š |
Š |
*ˆ |
*Š |
Š |
*Ьˆ |
|
|
ss,(Ntt) |
*s´ |
*s´ |
*s |
*s¬« |
s/x |
*¼-,«¬s |
«: |
*«:-, |
*s:-,« |
s(?) |
*s |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
s¬« |
*z´ |
*z´ |
*s |
*z |
|
*¼: |
z |
*½ |
*c: |
|
*z |
Palatal consonants in combination with -w-.
PNC |
PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*c´w |
*c´w |
*c |
*‰(º) |
‰(º) |
*¼-,«: |
‰(º) |
*s: |
*«:º-, |
|
*cº¬‰(º) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
‰(º) |
*½´w |
*½´w |
*½ |
*¼(º) |
¼ |
*«-¬«:-,« |
z |
*‰: |
*‰:(º) |
c: |
*sº(?)/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
‰:(º) |
*ˆ´w |
*ˆ´w |
*ps-, |
*Š(º) |
Š(º) |
*Š(º) |
Š(º) |
*ˆ¬Š |
*Š(º) |
ˆ,-z |
*¾(º)¬ |
|
|
ss¬ˆ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
zº/c:º |
*s´w |
*s´w |
*ps-,s |
*«(º) |
s/x |
*« |
« |
*s: |
*s: |
s(º) |
*Ǽ |
*z´w |
*z´w |
*« |
*«: |
¼ |
*¼: |
z |
|
*¾º |
z/s |
*sº |
Palatal "geminates".
PNC |
PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*c´_ |
*c´_ |
*-c- |
*c: |
c: |
*s: |
s: |
*c: |
*‰ |
c |
*‰(¬¾) |
|
|
(¬-«-) |
¬‰: |
¬‰: |
*c_´w |
*c_´w |
*-c- |
*«: |
‰: |
*«: |
« |
*s: |
*«:(º) |
|
*½º |
*½_´ |
*½_´ |
*ˆ |
*Š: |
Š: |
*‰ |
Š |
*c: |
*Š: |
-c |
*‘(?) |
|
|
(Ntt) |
|
|
|
(¬¼) |
*ˆ´_ |
*ˆ´_ |
*ˆ |
*Š: |
Š: |
*‰ |
Š,Rz |
*ˆ, |
*Š,R‰: |
Š |
*Š (‰) |
|
|
(Ntt) |
|
|
|
|
Rc: |
*ˆ´_w |
*ˆ´_w |
*ˆ |
|
Š: |
*‰¬c |
Š |
*ˆ |
*Šº¬ˆº |
*ˆ(º) |
*s´_ |
*s´_ |
*-ss- |
*«: |
s: |
*«:¬s: |
«: |
*«: |
*«: |
«(?) |
*s |
*s´_w |
*s´_w |
*ps-,ss |
*«:¬s: |
«: |
*«: |
«(w) |
*s: |
*«º¬sº |
p«(º)- |
*«º/s:º |
Comments.
1) We have to reconstruct a third affricate series
in PEC and PNC, because there is a great number of etymologies with correspondences
that do not at all fit into one of the two usually postulated affricate
series. A typical feature of the third series is the prevalence of hissing
reflexes in PN and PD, while in other languages, as a rule, hushing reflexes
are dominant.
2) Palatal (hissing-hushing) consonants in PWC and
PNC had approximately the same frequency as the hushing ones (see above).
Therefore not all rows of correspondences are established with equal reliability.
In particular, the combinations *½´w and *z´w are very rare (the last one
is reconstructed only for the personal pronoun of the 2nd pers. pl.) The
reconstruction of the voiced fricative *z´ is not quite reliable. Finally
we must state a weak ability of palatal "geminates" to combine with labialization
(only the combinations *c´_w and *ˆ´w are reconstructed quite reliably).
3) As we noted above, in PN hissing reflexes are
typical. Another thing in common with the hissing series is the appearance
of the PN geminate tt (®®) in the place of various medial affricates (in
the same positions as in the hissing series in combinations with preceding
nasal resonants). Furthermore, in the place of PEC hissing phonemes as
well as PEC palatal affricates and fricatives, a specific combination st(s®)
can be developed (adjacent to an older *j or following the resonant *l,
see above, page 47). Still, there are some differences in the palatal reflexation
and the hissing reflexation; some phonemes (the glottalised *ˆ´ and the
fricative *s´_) have a specific medial reflex *ss; labialized hissing and
labialized palatal sounds have quite different reflexes in PN.
4) In PA and in Avar, palatal reflexes in most cases
have merged with hushing reflexes (only occasionally - in the case of some
fricative phonemes and the affricate *c_´ - do we meet hissing reflexes;
there is also a characteristic correspondence "PA *«: : Av. ‰:" as a reflex
of PEC *c_´w, that, as far as the development of laryngeal features is
concerned, is rather similar to the hissing series - cf. PEC *c_w > PA
*s:, Av. c: - than to the hushing series). On the distribution of s and
x reflexes in Avar see page 49.
5) In PTs, in most cases, we also encounter hushing
reflexes of PEC palatal sounds (though sporadic hissing reflexes here are
more usual than in Avar-Andian languages). It is still hard to formulate
the principles of the distribution of hissing and hushing reflexes in PTs
(sometimes such variations are observed inside a single lexeme); we can
only state the fact that in initial position PEC *ˆ´ > PTs *ˆ, but in other
positions > PTs *Š. However, we must note that, while hushing reflexes
in PTs are generally prevalent, the general development of palatals here
is quite different from that of PEC hushing phonemes (cf. the fricativization
*c´ > «:, *½´ > « with an analogical fricativization *c > s:, *½ > s, but
*‰,*¾ > ‰ with the preservation of the affricate features).
6) In Lak the reflexes of palatals generally merge
with the reflexes of the hushing phonemes (see above). However, we must
note a specific development of fricatives (more similar to the development
of hissing than hushing fricatives), as well as the regular presence of
the hissing z in all rows, where one could expect the hushing ¼ (as a reflex
of PEC *½´, *z´, *½´w, *z´w, *ˆ´).
7) Dargwa is strikingly different from all other
Daghestan languages in its treatment of palatals; in most rows of correspondences
(except only the fricatives *s´, *s_´ and affricates *½´w, *ˆ´w, where
sporadic hushing reflexes are observed) Dargwa reveals hissing reflexes
that bring it closer to Nakh languages. One can see that except some minor
differences in development, PEC hissing and palatal affricates give the
same reflexes in Dargwa.
8) In PL palatals generally merge with hushing phonemes
(though the fricatives and the labialized *c´w, *c_´w develop in a somewhat
different way than the respective hushing consonants). As for Khinalug,
we can observe there both hissing and hushing reflexes, but there are too
few examples from this language to establish strict rules of reflexation.
9) In PWC we can state a variation of hissing and
hushing reflexes, whose distribution it is yet hard to establish. As regards
the development of laryngeal and quality features, palatal sounds in PWC
develop in a manner similar to other affricates and fricatives (see above).
It must be emphasized that PNC palatal (hissing-hushing) consonants have
no direct relation to modern hissing-hushing consonants, present in Adygh
languages, in Ubykh and in some Abkhaz dialects (see below on their origin).
1.1.7. Lateral consonants.
PNC |
PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*œ |
*œ |
*-l-¬ |
*œ |
› |
*›:-, |
x:¬x |
(*h-), |
*›-, |
‰-(?) |
*›/›: |
|
|
-r- |
|
|
L |
|
k |
›: |
*ž |
*ž |
*l-, |
*l |
l |
*L: |
k: |
*g¬k: |
*œ: |
‘ |
*L¬l |
|
|
r(ž) |
|
|
|
(¬l) |
* |
* |
*l-, |
* |
® |
* |
™ |
*™ |
* |
™ |
*¬ž |
|
|
-ž-,-l, |
|
|
|
(¬l) |
|
|
(-R›-) |
|
*› |
*› |
*l |
*› |
› |
*› |
x |
*-x:- |
*›: |
x |
*›/›: |
*š |
*š |
*l- |
*l |
l |
*l |
l |
*l |
*l |
l |
*l¬0 |
|
|
(¬-r-) |
*l |
*l |
*l |
*r |
r |
*r |
l |
*l |
*l |
l |
*l¬0 |
Lateral consonants in combination with -w-.
PNC |
PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*œw |
*œw |
*l-¬k-, |
*xº-, |
x(º) |
*-k-¬ |
k(º) |
*k(º) |
*›(º) |
|
*œ |
|
|
-»- |
-k- |
|
-›:- |
|
|
(¬-œ(w)-) |
*žw |
*žw |
*l-,-g- |
*kº |
l-, |
*k(º) |
-k:(º)- |
*-k:º- |
*œ(º): |
|
*L |
|
|
|
|
-g- |
*w |
*w |
*™´ |
* |
® |
* |
™(º) |
*™(º) |
*(º) |
™ |
*º¬ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
žw |
*›w |
*›w |
*f-,l» |
*›(º) |
› |
*›(º) |
h¬x:(º) |
*x:(º) |
*›(º) |
|
*›º/›:º |
Lateral "geminates".
PNC |
PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*œ_ |
*œ_ |
*-l»-, |
*œ: |
œ: |
*›: |
x:-, |
*k: |
*œ, |
k |
*œ¬ |
|
|
(r)ž |
|
|
|
-k:-(¬l) |
|
rœ: |
|
ž |
*œ_w |
*œ_w |
*k-,œ |
*›: |
œ: |
*›:- |
x-, |
*x(w) |
*›:(º) |
k- |
*œ(º) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
-k:º-(¬l) |
*ž_ |
*ž_ |
*l-,›, |
*: |
: |
*œ |
k:¬l |
*k:(’I) |
*œ: |
™ |
*L |
|
|
R› |
*ž_w |
*ž_w |
*l-,»™, |
*:(º) |
:(º) |
*œ |
k:¬l |
*k:(º) |
*:(º) |
|
*ž(º)¬ |
|
|
R› |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
º |
*_ |
*_ |
*-l»-, |
*: |
: |
*œ¬ |
k:¬l |
*‘ |
*: |
™-, |
*L¬l/œ: |
|
|
R› |
|
|
|
|
|
|
-k:-,-g |
*_w |
*_w |
*-»™ |
*: |
: |
*œ¬ |
™(º) |
*‘(w) |
*:(º) |
™ |
*º¬ |
|
|
|
¬(-™:-) |
¬(-™:-) |
¬(-k•1†-) |
|
|
|
Lº,žº |
*›_ |
*›_ |
*l- |
*›: |
›: |
*›:-, |
h¬x |
*-x:- |
*›: |
|
|
|
|
|
L |
*›_w |
*›_º |
*f-,l, |
*x(º)¬ |
x(º)¬ |
*-›:-¹ |
h¬x:(º) |
*x(w) |
*›:(º) |
|
*ݼ |
|
|
R› |
›: |
›: |
-›- |
/l |
Comments.
1) In the 1st pers. pl. incl. pronoun we can reconstruct
for PEC a voiced lateral fricative *L (cf. a similar reconstruction of
voiced fricatives in other personal pronouns, see above) with the following
reflexes: PN *t»(?), Av., PA *œ:, PTs *l, PL *ž, Khin. k. At any rate,
PWC correspondences for PEC *L are missing, and this phoneme is not included
in the table for lateral consonants.
2) In PN the initial system of laterals has undergone
serious transformations. Two lateral phonemes (PN *› and *ž) are preserved
in PN only in medial position. The basic principle of the reflexation of
laterals in PN is the preservation of lateral reflexes (l, ›, l») of non-labialized
PEC phonemes and the appearance of velar (and uvular) reflexes in the place
of PEC labialized laterals. The *l-reflex, occasionally met in labialized
series of correspondences, is probably a consequence of an early delabialization
of corresponding phoneme combinations in PN; only the PEC medial labialized
*›w and *›_w have systematically yielded lateral reflexes in PN. When labialized
laterals are velarized in PN, they are usually reflected in the initial
position as *k (original non-glottalized occlusives), *™´ (original glottalized
phonemes) and *f- (original fricatives); in medial position we observe
the reflexes *», *g, *»™. PEC *ž_w in a few as yet unclear cases can be
reflected in PN (in non-initial position) as *ª.
3) Avar-Andian languages are rather conservative
in the reflexation of laterals. Except some well-known processes (like
the development * > Av. ®), we must also note a rather systematic process
of velarization of labialized laterals (that has not affected only the
combinations of -w- with lax * and *›, as well as with the "geminate"
ž). However, it must be stated that this process was going on basically
in non-initial position; in initial position only the development *›_w
> xº (as well as *œw > xº) had occurred, and the appearance of initial
k:, k (in the place of *œ_w, *žw) is probably caused by the dissimilative
influence of the following resonant *š. Sporadically (as reflexes of *_w
and *›_w) we also meet non-velarized œ:, ›:, probably as a result of early
delabialization.
We must also note a specific correlation of Av.
œ:-: PA *›:- in the place of PEC labialized *œ_w (on the similar development
of PEC *c_w > Av. c:, PA *s:; PEC *c´_w > Av. ‰:, PA *«: see above).
4) The same process of velarization of old labialized
laterals, except for the velarization of fricatives, is typical for PTs;
thus, the beginning of this process can be dated from as far back as the
period of Avar-Andi-Tsezian unity. In other respects the reflexation of
laterals in PTs is generally similar to the reflexation of consonants in
the hissing and hushing series; e. g., we observe the fricativization of
all affricates, except the glottalized and the voiced "geminate".
5) In all Eastern Daghestan languages, lateral consonants
(except the resonant l) are lost at present; the only exception is Archi,
which has obviously preserved the laterals as a result of contact with
Avar-Andian. But evidently the process of the loss of laterals was comparatively
recent; thus, in Lak, together with normal velar reflexes in many series
of correspondences, we observe a sporadic l reflex; we can reconstruct
a PL system of lateral affricates and fricatives even without using the
Archi data (see below).
We must state that the opposition of voiced and
glottalized "geminates" in the lateral, as well as in other affricate series,
is generally reconstructed on the basis of Eastern Daghestan evidence.
However, the development of these geminates here differs a bit from their
development in other affricate series; glottalized geminates here do not
merge with the reflexes of plain glottalized consonants (cf. *_ > PL *:,
PD *‘ vs. * > PL *, PD *™), while voiced geminates give reflexes, similar
to those of PEC voiced (not aspirated) *ž. Therefore we could swap the
reconstructions and reconstruct ž_ instead of _ and vice versa. This,
however, would contradict the circumstance that the PEC geminate *ž_ <
PNC *g_ (see below) has the same reflexes in Eastern Daghestan languages.
Therefore it is probably appropriate here to suggest a shift in reflexation;
first occurred the development *ž_ > *ž, and then the initial geminate
*_ became voiced, taking the place of the lost ž_ (with the following
development > PL *:, PD *‘ - cf. *½_ > PL *ˆ:, PD *z and so on).
We should note the following specific features of
development in individual Eastern Daghestan languages:
a) in Lak: we observe a regular palatalization of
velar reflexes before the vowels a, i (k > ‰, k: > ‰:, ™ > Š, x > «, x:
> «:) - this process (not noted in the table) has affected both original
lateral and velar sounds (see below). In addition, if pharyngealization
is present, we can sporadically meet uvular reflexes *œ_ > »I as well as
*ž_ > *’I > *j.
b) in Dargwa, as in Lak, if an adjacent pharyngealized
vowel is present, we sometimes meet uvular or laryngeal reflexes instead
of velar ones.
On the further development of lateral reflexes in
Dargwa dialects and Lezghian languages see below, pp. 117-119, 131, 144.
Khinalug stands close to Eastern Daghestan languages
in its treatment of laterals: for the most part they have been transformed
here into velars (it is unclear yet whether the development œ > ‰ is regular).
However, because of insufficient evidence, Khinalug reflexes in many rows
of correspondences are yet unclear.
6) In PWC lateral consonants systematically give
lateral reflexes (on the reconstruction of PWC laterals see below, page
). As for the development of qualitative and laryngeal features in PWC,
the lateral series is similar to other affricate series (fricativization
*œ > › and some other special features of development bring the lateral
series close to the hissing one).
7) The opposition of two lateral resonants - *l
and *š - is reconstructed on the basis of the reflexes of Western Daghestan
languages (where *l > r). The status of the phoneme *š in PEC and PNC is
not yet quite clear (some features draw it near to resonants, others -
to fricatives). In PWC *l and *š, as other resonants (see above), are subject
to loss.
The behaviour of the initial *l before the following
syllable-final resonants n and m requires a special comment (it is worth
noting that there are no examples of *š in this position). We have the
following correspondences here (although on the whole there are not many
examples):
PNC,PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*l(..n) |
|
*n- |
m- |
|
(*m- >0-) |
*l- |
*l- |
|
|
*l(..m) |
*l-¬m- |
*r- |
r- |
*n- |
l- |
*l- |
*n- |
|
*l-¬0- |
An unusual reflex m- in Avar (and *m- > 0- in Lak;
on the development of the initial *m in this language see above, page 43)
is explained by the fact that in the single example where we have Avar
and Lak reflexes, the medial consonant, following *-n-, is labialized;
this labialization conditioned the secondary labialization of the initial
nasal. Tsezian and Khinalug reflexes of *l- with the following nasals are
not attested yet.
1.1.8. Velar consonants.
PNC |
PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*k |
*k |
*k |
*k |
k |
*k |
k |
*k |
*k |
k |
*k |
*™ |
*™ |
*™ |
*™ |
™ |
*™ |
™ |
*™ |
*™ |
™,-0,-Ng |
*™/k: |
*g |
*g |
*g |
*g |
g |
*g-,g•1† |
g¬k: |
*k: |
*g¬k: |
g |
*g |
*x |
*x |
*» |
*› |
› |
*›¬›: |
x |
*x |
*› |
«(?) |
*x |
Velars in combination with -w-.
PNC |
PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*kw |
*kw |
*k |
*k(º) |
k(º) |
*k(º) |
k(º) |
*k(º) |
*k(º) |
k |
*kº/k:º |
*gw |
*gw |
*k(¬g) |
*g(º) |
g(º) |
*g•1†º |
gº¬ |
*gº¬ |
*k:(º) |
g |
*gº/k:º |
|
|
|
|
|
(¬gº) |
k:º |
*k:º |
¬*g(w) |
*™w |
*™w |
*™ |
*™(º) |
™(º) |
*™(º) |
™(º) |
*™(º) |
*™(º) |
™-,-Ng |
*™º¬¬gº |
*xw |
*xw |
*» |
*x(º) |
x(º) |
*L-, |
x(w) |
*x:(º) |
*›(º) |
x |
*xº |
|
|
|
|
(¬›) |
›: |
Velar "geminates".
PNC |
PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*k_ |
*k_ |
*k |
*k |
k¬g |
*k |
k: |
*k: |
*k |
|
*™(?)/k: |
*k_w |
*k_w |
*k |
*kº |
k(º) |
*k(º) |
k(º) |
*k(º) |
*k:(º) |
k:º |
*kº |
|
|
|
|
¬g(º) |
*g_ |
*ž_ - see above, page 53 |
|
|
|
|
|
*‘ |
*g_w |
*ž_w - see above, page 53 |
|
|
|
|
|
*‘(º) |
*™_ |
*™_ |
*g-,™ |
*™: |
™: |
*k(ª) |
k: |
*k: |
*k:-,™ |
™ |
*™ |
*™_w |
*™_w |
*™ |
*™:(º) |
™:(º) |
*q(º) |
™(º) |
*k:(º)-, |
*k:(º)-, |
™ |
*ªº¬’º |
|
|
(¬®ª?) |
|
|
(¬ª(º)) |
|
™(w) |
™(w) |
|
*x_ |
*x_ |
*» |
*›: |
›: |
*›: |
x: |
*x |
*›: |
x |
*x |
*x_º |
*x_º |
*p»-,» |
*›(º) |
x¬› |
|
x:(º) |
*x(º): |
*›:(º) |
|
*xw |
Comments.
1) Velar consonants, judging by their phonological
features, were regarded as an affricate series (typical features - the
presence of fricatives and geminates) in PNC and PEC. This situation is
best preserved in modern Avar-Andian languages (that have a tense ™: opposed
to the lax ™, as well as a velar fricative x), but to some extent the traces
of the original state are preserved in other languages as well.
2) The velar fricatives *x, *x: are reconstructed
for PNC primarily on the basis of the joint evidence of Nakh and West-Caucasian
languages, where their reflexes are markedly different from the reflexes
of lateral fricatives (see above). However, in other languages the reflexes
of velar and lateral fricatives are also somewhat different (e.g., in PD
both lateral fricatives have merged in lax *x, while both velar ones have
merged in tense *x:, etc.). For the detailed account of the reconstruction
of the opposition of velar and lateral fricatives (not reconstructed by
N. S. Trubetskoy and differently reconstructed by E. A. Bokarev and B.
K. Gigineyshvili) see Starostin 1987, 440-441.
3) There is some evidence in favour of reconstructing
a PEC voiced fricative *‘ (correspondences: PN *’-,g: PA *h¬*€: Av. g:
PTs *h-,0: PD *‘: PL *g¬k:), as well as the combination *‘w (correspondences:
PN *’-: PA *h: Av. g(º): Lak g(º)¬h: PL *’-). However, not a single root
with this fricative has a PWC correspondence - therefore the presence of
*‘ in PNC is still dubious.
4) The tense affricate k:, present in Avar-Andian
languages, in all cases known to us, has developed either from laterals
(see above) or from uvulars (see below). Therefore we cannot reconstruct
PEC and PNC velar geminates in its place. However, there is a rather significant
number of words that in different languages show velar reflexes with non-standard
correspondences of laryngeal features. We have grouped these correspondences
into rows where it seems plausible to reconstruct the geminates *k_ and
*k_w respectively (if we suppose a development *k_ > *k, *k_w > *k(º) in
Avar-Andi-Tsezian and the development *k_ > *k: or *k_ > *k in the Lak-Lezghian-Dargwa
area).
5) Some special comments on the behaviour of voiced
*g and *gw are appropriate.
The split of reflexes (*g > g¬k:) is observed in
Lak and PL. One can note that in Lak g occurs basically within grammatical
and pronominal morphemes and within expressive words; otherwise k: is common.
In PL the split rules are not quite clear, but it seems that g occurs in
some cases within medial clusters after preceding liquid and nasal resonants,
while in some other cases it is a result of assimilation (or dissimilation)
to adjacent consonants.
As for *gw, the situation here is more complicated:
a) in PN the basic reflex is probably *k (cf. *dw
> *t, see above), but in some cases (probably as a result of early delabialization)
we observe the development *gw > *g.
b) in PTs the rules of the variation *gº¬g•1†º are
not clear (as opposed to the distribution of non-labialized reflexes *g/*g•1†,
see above).
c) in Lak and PL the voiced reflex *g(º) is typical
after an immediately preceding resonant; as for Dargwa, there is not enough
evidence for establishing reliable rules of distribution.
6) The voiced geminate *g_ can not be reconstructed
for PEC; as for PNC, it is reconstructed on the basis of the correspondence
PEC *ž_ : PWC *‘ (one of the few cases, when we can suppose a difference
between PNC and PEC).
7) In Lak, velars (both original ones and reflexes
of laterals, see above) usually become palatalized and develop into hushing
consonants before the vowels a, i; this (obviously late) process is not
specially noted in the table.
8) In PTs the reflex of the labialized geminate
*™_w is regularly shifted into the uvular series (a phenomenon opposite
to the one that was happening in many languages with labialized uvulars,
see below). The same shift is typical for PWC (this is one of several characteristic
phonetic isoglosses between PTs and PWC); it is not quite clear whether
the sporadically occurring PN reflex *™_w > ®ª is somehow related to this.
We must state that in PTs, in some cases, we also observe the development
*™w > ª(º) in initial position, but it is less regular (in most cases in
PTs the initial ™(º) is preserved).
9) In PWC, velars generally are preserved (with
the standard development of quantity and quality features, depending on
the vocalic environment). We must note the devoicing *gw > kw (similar
to what happened in PN; see above on a similar development of the labialized
dental *dw in PWC and PN), and also the presence in some cases of an unexpected
glottalized reflex of old non-glottalized "geminates" (however, the evidence
available is not quite reliable).
1.1.9. Uvular consonants.
PNC |
PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*q |
*q |
*q |
*q |
h,R» |
*»¬’:, |
q |
*q |
*» |
q,-»(€) |
*»/q: |
|
|
|
|
|
R»: |
*G |
*G |
*’ |
*’ |
’ |
*»¬’: |
q: |
*q: |
*q: |
q: |
*’ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/qI |
*ª |
*ª |
*q¬€ |
*ª |
|
*ª |
ª¬€ |
*ª-, |
*ª |
ª,-’ |
*ª(¬’) |
|
|
(¬-R-) |
|
|
|
-ª-¬-€- |
*» |
*» |
*» |
*»:, |
»:/“, |
*»:(/’:-), |
»:¬h |
*»:-, |
*» |
» |
*»(/q:?) |
|
|
|
R» |
R» |
R» |
(/“) |
» |
*’ |
*’ |
*’ |
*’ |
’ |
*»¬’: |
’ |
*’ |
*’ |
|
*’ |
Uvular consonants in combinations with *w.
PNC |
PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*qw |
*qw |
*p“- |
*q(º) |
h,R» |
*»¬’:, |
q(º) |
*q(º) |
*»(º) |
q |
*ȼ |
|
|
|
|
|
R»: |
|
|
|
|
/q:º |
*Gw |
*Gw |
*q¬’ |
*’(º) |
’(º) |
*»(º)¬ |
q:(º) |
*’(º)-, |
*q:(º) |
q- |
*’º |
|
|
|
|
|
’:(º) |
(¬’º) |
q:(º) |
/qI(º) |
|
/q:º |
*ªw |
*ªw |
*b‚-¬ |
*ªw-, |
-, |
*ª(º) |
€-(w-) |
*ª(º)-, |
*ª(º) |
ª-, |
*ªº¬ |
|
|
€-,ª |
™(º), |
™(º), |
|
¬ª-,™(º), |
™(º), |
|
™ |
Gº/ |
|
|
(¬’,€) |
Rª(º) |
’ |
|
R€ |
Rª(º)¬R€ |
|
|
q:(º) |
*»w |
*»w |
*» |
*»:, |
»:(º) |
*»:, |
»(º): |
*»(º) |
*»(º) |
» |
*ȼ |
|
|
|
R» |
¬h,R» |
R»¬ |
¬h |
|
|
|
|
(¬Rh) |
R’: |
*’w |
*’w |
*H |
*’º |
’º |
*’:º |
h(¬’º) |
*h¬“-,’ |
*’(º) |
’¬» |
*’º |
Uvular "geminates".
PNC |
PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*q_ |
*q_ |
*’¬q |
*q: |
q: |
*»: |
q¬»: |
*q/qI: |
*»:¬ |
»(?) |
*G¬’ |
|
|
(¬R») |
|
(¬»:) |
|
|
|
q,Rq: |
/q: |
*q_w |
*q_w |
*’¬q |
*q:(º), |
q:(º), |
*»:(º) |
q(:)-(w), |
*q:(º), |
*»:(º) |
q:-, |
*qº¬ |
|
|
|
k:(º), |
k:(º), |
|
x:(º), |
k:(º), |
¬q(º) |
k, |
ȼ/ |
|
|
|
Rq:(º) |
Rq:(º) |
|
Rqº¬R»:º |
Rq:(º) |
|
Rq: |
q:º |
*G_ |
*G_ |
*ª¬’ |
*ª: |
ª: |
*q |
ª |
*’-,q: |
*ª:/ |
ª |
*G |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
q:I |
(/qI) |
*G_w |
*G_w |
*p“-¬ |
*ª:(º) |
ª:(º) |
*q(º) |
ª(º) |
*’º |
*q:º-, |
ª |
*’º¬ |
|
|
ª-,ª |
|
|
|
(¬-0) |
(¬q:º) |
ª:º, |
(¬’?) |
ª(º) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rq:º |
*ª_ |
*ª_ |
*’-, |
*ª: |
ª: |
*q» |
ª,R’ |
*ª-, |
*ª,-q: |
ª, |
*ª¬’ |
|
|
ª |
|
|
|
|
ª¬€, |
(/ªI-, |
-R |
/q: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rh(/RhI) |
ª:I) |
PNC |
PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*ª_w |
*ª_w |
*p“- |
*ª:(º)-, |
ª:(º)-, |
*q(º)¬ |
q:(º)- |
*ªº-, |
*ª(º) |
ª-, |
*ªw¬ |
|
|
»-, |
™:(º), |
™:(º), |
ª(º) |
¬€-, |
Rª(º) |
(¬ª:Iº-) |
™, |
Rw/ |
|
|
ª |
Rª:(º) |
Rª:(º) |
|
™(º), |
|
|
Rª |
qº: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rª(º) |
*»_ |
*»_ |
*»-, |
*»,R»: |
h/»:, |
*»:¬’: |
»:¬h |
*»: |
*»: |
» |
*»(¬’?) |
|
|
“ |
(/»:-) |
R»: |
|
(/“) |
(¬h) |
*»_w |
*»_w |
*(p)“-, |
*»(º), |
»:(º)¬ |
*»:(º) |
»:(º) |
*»:(º) |
*»:(º) |
p»-, |
*ȼ |
|
|
“ |
R»(º): |
h,R» |
¬’:(º) |
¬h(“) |
|
» |
Comments.
1) Many North-Caucasian languages (Tsezian, Lak,
Dargwa, Lezghian, Ubykh) possess, besides plain uvulars, a special series
of uvular pharyngealized consonants (though in many of those languages
pharyngealization can be combined not only with uvulars, and from the phonological
point of view it may be considered an independent vocalic or prosodic feature
- see [Starostin 1987, 465-466]). Pharyngealization (and the pharyngealization
of uvulars in particular) is apparently the result of the fall of certain
laryngeals (see below), therefore we do not reconstruct a special pharyngealized
uvular series for PNC. However, it must be noted that pharyngealization
rather often (especially in PL) leads to the modification of the reflex
of the uvular consonant. Such modified reflexes were indicated in the table
by the pharyngealization marker - I; the lack of such a marker in any row
of correspondences means that the quality of a pharyngealized reflex does
not differ from a corresponding non-pharyngealized one.
2) In the reflexes of the labialized uvular affricates
*ªw, *ª_w and *q_w in Avar-Andian, Lak, Dargwa and Khinalug, we observe
a very characteristic parallel development: the uvular affricates in non-initial
position shift to the velar series. This shift does not occur in combinations
with preceding liquid resonants (r and l) or in initial position (a single
exception from the last rule is the numeral "two", which is characterized
by the development *ªw- > *™w-; this is apparently motivated by the exceptional
monosyllabic structure of this root). For the correspondence Av. k: : PL
*qº, E. A. Bokarev [Bokarev 1981] and B. K. Gigineyshvili [Gigineyshvili
1977] reconstruct a tense affricate *k:. The correspondence of Av. ™: :
PL *ªº is interpreted by E. A. Bokarev as reflecting the PEC tense affricate
*™:, while B. K. Gigineyshvili classifies it (as well as the correspondence
of Av. ™: : PL *ªº, not noticed by E. A. Bokarev) as irregular (with a
provisional reconstruction *™•1†). Neither of the authors have given thought
to the circumstance that all the listed correspondences demand the obligatory
presence of labialization and the medial position of corresponding reflexes
and therefore are in strict complementary distribution with the correspondences
"Av.-And. q: : PL *qº", "Av.-And. *ªº: PL *ªº" and "Av.And. *ª:(º): PL
*ªº". These facts do not leave any doubt as to the necessity of reconstructing
PEC (and PNC) uvular consonants in all these cases.
The development of uvular labialized *q_w, *ªw and
*ª_w into velars in medial postvocalic position has not at all afflicted
Nakh, Tsezian, Lezghian and West-Caucasian languages. This development
must be dated in a rather late period (after the break of the Avar-Andi-Tsezian
unity); this is an important areal phonetic isogloss, which obviously can
provide us with information about the geographic location of separate families
of the East-Caucasian languages in the period about the 2nd-3rd millennium
B.C.
3) For Nakh languages, the difference between the
reflexes of *» and *»_ is characteristic (other tense and lax fricatives
usually merge there - see above), as well as the specific initial reflexes
of labialized uvulars (*qw-, *»_w-,*G_w-,*ª_w> *p“-, *ªw> *b‚-). The reasons
for the sporadic appearance of the reflex ’ (along with regular q and ª)
in many rows of correspondences are not yet clear.
4) Avar-Andian languages demonstrate a rather specific
positional development of uvular fricatives ("the swapping of places" of
the reflexes of *» and *»_ in all positions respectively, except the position
after the medial liquid resonants; historically it can be explained as
the treatment *» = »h and *»_ = » respectively in an independent position
(not in combinations with consonants), with a further allophonic development
*» > », *»h > »:). In Avar this process was going on not quite consequently;
as a result we see frequent variations between »: and h (the latter reflects
in Avar an earlier lax *» (in all positions except after original medial
liquid resonants, where the fricative » is preserved as a rule, see [Starostin
1987, 448-449]). One may also note the presence of the emphatic laryngeal
“ instead of » in Avar in words with lost pharyngealization (a rare case
of segment reflection of pharyngealization in Avar).
5) In Tsezian languages the distribution of the
reflexes of *» is similar to that of Andian languages (see above) and probably
dates from the period of Avar-Andi-Tsezian unity. Unfortunately, it is
hard to show a similar distribution for the reflexes of PEC *»_ : it is
connected with the general instability of PTs fricative reflexes of PEC
uvulars (we observe here an unmotivated and unexplained variation *»¬’:,
*»:¬’:).
In other respects, the behaviour of uvulars in PTs
is similar to that of other affricates.
6) In Lak we must note the variation ª¬€ in the
place of PEC *ª, as well as the variation between »: and h (the latter
appears as “ if pharyngealization is present) in the place of PEC uvular
fricatives. We can not state any strict rules of distribution between these
reflexes; they apparently result from old dialect mergers. One can also
note the voicing *Rª_ > *R’, parallel to the similar process in the system
of front affricates (see above).
7) In Dargwa, as in Lak, we meet the reflex € in
the place of PEC *ª, and occasionally - h in the place of *»_; however,
these sporadic reflexes are much less common here than in Lak (thus, the
fricatives *», *»w and *»_w give quite uniform reflexes). The Lak R’ (
< *rª_) corresponds here to the combination *Rh (*RhI) that has obviously
developed from an earlier *R’; therefore, Dargwa also reveals a positional
voicing of the reflex of the glottalized geminate *ª_ after medial resonants
(parallel to the development of other similar geminates, see above).
8) In PL we see a split of the reflexes of several
uvular consonants, depending on the presence or lack of pharyngealization
(the *q:I reflex, expected in the place of PEC *G with pharyngalization,
shifted early to lax (aspirated) *qI, but a new *q:I has developed here
in the place of the voiced geminated *G_; thus there occurred a kind of
"shift" of pharyngealized uvular consonants). PL reflexes of uvular voiced
and glottalized geminates are very complicated; we see different positional
complementary distributions of reflexes and a different development of
pharyngealized and non-pharyngealized variants. In particular, one may
note an untrivial development, *ª_ > *q:, in final position (i.e. in the
final position of the PL nominal root already after the reduction of final
vowels, see below) as opposed to the glottalized reflex *ª in initial and
medial position (e.g., inside verbal roots). Despite the complexity of
PL reflexes, they seem inwardly quite logical and are confirmed by a large
number of examples, therefore seem quite reliable to us.
9) The development of labialized uvulars in Khinalug
is another feature that strictly distinguishes this language from Lezghian
and brings it closer to Lak-Dargwa dialect zones on one side, and to Andi-Avar
on the other. On the contrary, the development *»_w- > p»- (as well as
some other features of consonantism) cuts Khinalug off from other Daghestan
languages and brings it closer to Nakh. Unfortunately the materials on
this interesting language are rather scanty, and the reflexes of some phonemes
in it are either completely unknown or not reliable.
10) In the reflexes of uvulars in PWC, as in those
of the consonants of other local series (see above), we observe sporadic
variation between voice/voicelessness and (more often) glottalization/voice.
In other respects the development is standard (e.g., we observe the appearance
of "new tense" consonants in the place of old voiceless uvulars before
initially long vowels as well as the appearance of palatalized and labialized
variants of reflexes, depending on the quality of original following vowels).
In two roots there is an unusual correspondence
PEC *»_w : PWC *žº. The reasons for the appearance of a lateral reflex
in PWC (we can judge about its laterality by the Abkhaz reflex l, see below)
are yet unclear (it is not to be excluded that in PWC these roots had a
combination like *r-ȼ with the following development *rȼ > *rw: the reflexes
of this *rw could have merged with those of the PWC *žº in individual languages).
This correspondence is not included in the general table (because of the
uncertainty of its interpretation), though it seems quite real and reliable.
1.1.10. Laryngeal consonants.
PNC,PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*€ |
*€-,0 |
*€¬h- |
€-,0 |
*€ |
€-,0 |
*€-,0 |
*€ |
€-,0 |
0 |
*h |
*H |
*h¬“ |
h |
*h |
h- |
*€-¬h- |
*h |
h- |
0 |
*” |
*“,-0- |
*h-¬ |
“¬ |
*€-¬j-, |
€I¬j |
*€-¬h-, |
*‚-/ |
h-(?), |
0 |
|
|
€-,-€- |
|
-0(I)- |
|
“¬0 |
hI-, |
-0 |
|
|
|
|
¬-h- |
|
|
-€(I)- |
*‚ |
*H- |
*H |
h-¬€- |
*H-,€ |
€- |
*- |
*€ |
|
0 |
*“ |
*“-,0 |
|
“-,0 |
*h-,-(I) |
-“- |
*-“- |
*j |
-0 |
0 |
* |
*“ |
*€- |
|
*€- |
h |
*h-,“ |
*“ |
|
0 |
Laryngeals in combination with -w-.
PNC,PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*€w |
*H |
*€-¬b-, |
€¬b |
*€ |
h-¬b-, |
*€ |
*€(I)º |
w- |
0 |
|
|
-€- |
|
|
-0- |
(¬-) |
|
*hw |
*(b)‚-, |
*H |
h(¬“-) |
*“-¬ |
€I-,0 |
*“- |
*€ |
|
0 |
|
‚¬0 |
|
|
h-,j-, |
|
(¬w-), |
|
|
|
|
j¬w |
|
“¬0 |
*”w |
*H-(¬b-), |
*H |
“¬ |
*“-¬€-, |
€I- |
*“ |
*“- |
|
0 |
|
“ |
|
|
€(-0I-) |
(¬w-, |
(¬b-?) |
(¬w-?). |
|
|
|
|
|
j-), |
|
“(-€-) |
|
|
|
|
|
0I(j) |
|
*‚w |
*b‚-,“ |
*h(º) |
b |
*“-¬h- |
€I-¬ |
*“-,h |
*€(º) |
p- |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
j-,0 |
(¬€) |
*“w |
*“-,‚ |
*“¬h(w) |
“ |
*“- |
€I-¬ |
*- |
*‚º- |
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
bI-,0I |
hI- |
*w |
|
*H |
|
|
€I- |
*(º) |
*€I(º) |
Comments.
1) Laryngeals are the most unstable class of consonants
in North Caucasian languages. Their exact reflexes are often hard to establish
(especially in PN and PA, where in some cases we use the symbol H, denoting
an arbitrary laryngeal). Laryngeals are subject to frequent articulatory
variations; such processes as dropping, development into j (for nonlabialized
laryngeals) or w (for labialized ones) are typical for them. In PWC, as
it is shown in the table, all laryngeals have been simply dropped (laryngeal
consonants cannot be reconstructed for PWC, see below).
Despite these difficulties, however, the established
correspondences allow us to reconstruct a six-laryngeal system for PEC
- three plain (*€, *h, *”) and three emphatic (*‚, *“, *) (and for PNC
by extrapolation). A typical feature of the emphatic laryngeals is that
nouns that contain them reveal in Avar an immobile accent paradigm (the
so-called "Paradigm A"), while words with plain laryngeals (or without
laryngeals) have in Avar either an oxyton or a mobile accent paradigm (paradigms
B and C).
In the table above we give only the reflexes of
laryngeals in independent (initial and medial) positions. For their reflexes
in combinations with other consonants (that seriously differ from their
independent reflexes), see below.
1.1.11. Consonant clusters
Consonant clusters in PNC and PEC can be divided
into three main groups:
a) Clusters of identical consonants - the so-called
"geminates" (their reflexes were shown above). These clusters have a "quasiphonemical"
character, because, like simple consonants, they can occupy the second
position in medial clusters with preceding resonants. On a possible prosodic
treatment of the PNC "geminates", see below.
b) Clusters of obstruents (except labial ones) with
a following resonant w (their reflexes were also shown above). They too
can occupy the second position in medial combinations with preceding resonants
(therefore complexes like -rtw- or -nˆ_w- are possible).
c) Clusters of different consonants that have an
exact "biphonemical" status, i.e. do not let other consonant phonemes precede
them. The components of these clusters are obstruents (plain or "geminated",
with the following w or without it) and resonant consonants.
The reflexes of the cluster types a) and b) (that
can theoretically be treated as monophonemic) have been examined above.
The c) type clusters may be grouped as follows:
1) Clusters of obstruents. The combinations of oral
obstruents were apparently not allowed (or extremely rare) in PNC and PEC;
but there is a numerous and important group of clusters of oral obstruents
and laryngeals (combinations like CH- and HC-).
2) Clusters of obstruents and resonants. In PEC
and PNC, combinations like RC are allowed; they are rather rarely encountered
in initial position and very frequently otherwise. A subtype of this type
of clusters are the combinations "resonant+laryngeal" (RH). The combinations
of oral obstruents and following resonants (CR) were not allowed; however,
the combinations "laryngeal+resonant" (HR) are reconstructed quite reliably
(see below).
3) Clusters of resonants. This type of combinations
is rather rare and usually met only in non-initial position.
In this section we will examine only the medial
combinations of consonants in nominal roots; as for the behaviour of initial
consonant clusters (in most languages simplified) as well as of consonant
clusters in verbal roots, we would rather examine them in the section concerning
root structure and prosody (see below).
As we see from the above, possible clusters inside
the PNC (PEC) root were RC, RH, HR, RR; we will now examine their reflexes.
1.1.11.1. Clusters of the type RC ("resonant"+"obstruent").
A typical feature of the behaviour of such clusters
in North-Caucasian languages is the frequent dropping of resonants and
the usual instability of their reflexes. Its consequence is in particular
the fact that in PTs and PWC clusters like this were altogether simplified
and preserved only the second obstruent component (in PTs some resonants
have left a trace by having nasalized the previous vowel). We must specifically
note the instability of the resonant *-l-, which is not preserved almost
anywhere, but which has a tendency to change either into -r- or into -n-
(with a possible following disappearance and nasalization of the previous
vowel).
1.1.11.1.A. Clusters "resonant+labial consonants".
Such clusters are rather rare (the most frequent
are combinations of the resonant -m- with different labials) and have the
following reflexes:
PNC,PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*rp |
*p |
*p |
|
*p |
|
*rp |
*rp |
*rb |
|
*p |
|
|
|
|
*rp: |
|
*b |
*lp |
*p |
|
l(V)p |
*p |
p |
*rp |
*p |
|
*p: |
*mp |
*m |
*b |
m |
*m |
m |
*m¬b |
*m |
m |
*p(?) |
*mb |
*b |
*b |
b |
*b¬m |
m |
*m |
*m |
It can be seen that the nasal -m- has a tendency
to consume the following explosive articulation. On the whole, the reconstruction
here is rather tentative - primarily because the clusters in question are
rare (each cluster being present in one or two examples, and in many cases
reflexes in individual languages are not attested at all).
1.1.11.1.B. Clusters "resonant+front consonants"
The general picture of reflexation here is as follows
(the symbol T means any front consonant - dental explosive, hissing, hushing
or palatal):
PNC,PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*rT |
*(r)T |
*rT/(r)T |
(r)T |
*T |
rT |
*rT/T |
*rT |
T |
*T |
In PN and Avar, -r- either disappears or is preserved
(statistically in Avar the disappearance of this consonant is prevalent).
In PA r is preserved if T is a dental explosive, but it can disappear before
affricates or fricatives. In Dargwa -r- is usually preserved, but regularly
disappears before the glottalized *ˆ, *ˆ_. The most stable reflexation
is that of PL and Lak on one side (where *r is always preserved) and in
PTs and PWC on the other (where it always disappears).
PNC,PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*lT |
*(r)T |
*T/nT |
(r)T |
*(V¬)T |
(r)T |
*rT/T |
*lT/T |
T |
*T |
The resonant *l in combinations with front consonants
is reconstructed basically on the evidence of PL (on the reconstruction
of *l-clusters in PL see below, page 153).
In PN and Avar, *l in the examined combinations
can either develop into r or disappear (the distribution between these
two types of reflexes is unclear yet); on a special reflexation of some
clusters with *l in PN (> PN *tt, *st) see above, page 47). Lak has similar
reflexes (either development into r or disappearance of *l), though here
we also meet sporadic cases of preserving -l- or the change -l- > -n-.
In PA *l (unlike *r, see above) usually disappears,
leaving no trace. However, before the PA hushing consonants *‰, *¼ we see
the development *l > *n (in single cases even the preservation of l).
In PTs the medial *l regularly disappears, leaving
behind a nasalisation of the preceding vowel (apparently through an intermediate
state *-l- > *-n-).
In PD the reflexes of *l are generally similar to
those of *r; *l usually develops into r, but it can disappear before following
hissing consonants (not only before glottalized, as in the case of *r).
PL preserves *l in most cases; this consonant disappears
only before hushing sounds in the sequence *mVl‰- > *mV‰- (apparently as
a result of a progressive nasalization *mVl‰- > *mVn‰- > *mV‰-).
Finally, in Khinalug (in the few attested cases)
and in PWC *-l- disappears without a trace.
PNC,PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*nT |
*nT/T/rT |
*nT/T |
nT/T |
*(V~)T¬(V)T |
nT/T |
*(n)T |
*nT/rT |
T |
*T |
The medial *n, as all other resonants, is best preserved
in PL (though the sequences *bVnT-, *mVnT- in PL had undergone an early
dissimilative development *mVnT- > *mVrT- or resonant dropping *mVnT- >
*mVT-).
In PN *n is preserved before dental explosives,
develops into *r (becomes subject to denasalization) or disappears before
fricatives and disappears before affricates. A similar distribution of
reflexes (though without the development *n > r) is met in Avar and Lak,
where *n is usually preserved before dental explosives, but dropped before
affricates.
In PA *n usually is preserved in combinations; however,
if a nasal *n is present in initial position or in the following syllable
it disappears by dissimilation; sometimes it is dropped also before fricatives.
In PD *n is in most cases preserved, though it may
sporadically disappear.
In Khinalug, PWC and PTs *-n-, like the other resonants,
usually disappears. PTs reveals in some cases the nasalization of the preceding
vowel; however, sometimes *n disappears without any trace.
PNC,PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*mT |
*nT/T |
*(n)T |
T |
*(V~)T¬(V)T |
(n)T |
*mT/nT/T |
*mT/T |
mT/T |
*T |
In PL and PD, the nasal in clusters of the type *mT
is usually preserved, disappearing only (as a consequence of dissimilation)
after the initial resonants. PL always preserves the labial character of
*m, while Dargwa preserves *m proper only if a hissing consonant is following;
in other cases it turns into n.
PA and Lak reveal a variation between *nT and *T;
in Khinalug in the few known cases we observe either the preservation of
m, either its disappearance (with unclear distribution).
In PN *m (unlike *n, see above) usually disappears
before dental explosives, but is preserved (as n, rarely m) before affricates;
the character of Nakh reflexes before original fricatives is not quite
clear. It must be noted that when the original affricates after *-m- develop
into PN *tt (see above, page 46), *-m- (just as *-n-) regularly disappears.
In rare cases in PN we see a sporadic denasalization *-mT- > *-bT-.
Avar regularly simplifies *mT > T (including the
position before dental explosives, where the old *n is preserved, see above).
The same is true for PTs (where we observe the same occasional nasalization
of the previous vowel, as in the case with *n) and for PWC.
The resonants *w and *j are rather rarely met as
components of medial consonant clusters; the medial -j- is not preserved
at all in modern languages, but it can be reconstructed in some cases,
judging by the character of the PN reflex of adjacent affricates or fricatives
(see above, page 47).
Front consonants themselves, as components of clusters
with preceding resonants, usually give normal reflexes (see above), though
we must note a specific development of the voiced dental *d, which may
be consumed by the preceding resonant articulation:
PNC,PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*rd |
*rd¬r |
*rd |
rd¬r |
*d¬r |
rt:¬d |
*(r)t: |
*rt: |
r |
*d |
*rdw |
*t |
*rd |
rd |
*d |
rt: |
*rt: |
*rd |
*ld |
|
*ld |
(l)d |
*l |
j(?)¬ll |
*lt: |
*rt: |
*nd |
*d |
*nd |
(n)d |
*d |
t:¬nn |
*(n)t: |
|
|
*d |
*md |
*d |
*(n)d |
d |
*d•1†¬d |
(n)t:¬d |
*(n)t: |
*mt¬t: |
1.1.11.1.C. Clusters "resonant+lateral consonants".
In the table of correspondences given below we will
mark the laterals by the symbol L, and velars - by K. Before laterals we
reconstruct the same set of resonants that we do before other obstruents
(i.e. *r, *l, *n, *m; *w is met very rarely and its reflexation will not
be specially examined; combinations with *j cannot be reconstructed).
PNC,PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*rL |
*rL |
*rL |
L |
*L |
K |
*(r)K |
*rL |
K |
*L |
As we see in this table, *r in lateral clusters is
preserved by PL, PN, PA and (not always) in PD; in other languages *-r-
disappears.
PNC,PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*lL |
*L |
*rL |
rL |
*L |
rK |
*rK |
*L |
The clusters "l+lateral" are reconstructed here only
from systematic considerations (by analogy with the development of *l in
combinations with other consonants). The loss *l > 0 in PL, where resonants
usually are preserved, is characteristic; it is quite probable that the
lateral articulation of *l was preserved here too, which ultimately resulted
in its dropping by dissimilation with the following lateral obstruent.
In rare cases, when *l and the following lateral obstruent happen to be
divided by the syllable border, *l can even be preserved in PL. In other
languages *l can either develop into r or disappear; however, it is worth
noting that its reflexes in most languages differ from those of *r.
PNC,PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*nL |
*rL |
*nL/L |
L |
*L |
K |
*(n)K¬rK |
*nL/L |
K |
*L |
The resonant *n, in combinations with following laterals,
is also rather unstable. It is preserved in PA (but disappears here as
a consequence of dissimilation after initial resonants: *wVnL- > *mVL-¬
*bVL-), in PL (with a similar disappearance *wVnL- > *wVL-), and sometimes
in PD (though the disappearance *n > 0 or the development *n > r is more
frequent here). In other languages *n disappears before laterals (although
PTs, Lak and Khinalug may preserve its trace as nasalization of initial
resonants; in Lak this nasalization was followed by the dissimilative denasalization
of *-n- and its development into -r-: *bVnL- > *mVnL- > *mVrK-). In PN
it develops into -r-.
PNC,PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*mL |
*L |
*mL/L |
L |
*L |
nK |
*(n)K |
*mL/rL |
*L |
The resonant *m is preserved in PA (though it disappears
as a consequence of dissimilation in the sequence *bVmL- > bVL-) and in
PL (where *m in the same sequence had undergone a more complicated development:
*bVmL- > *bVnL- > *mVnL- > mVrL-). In Lak *mL > nK (unlike the sequence
*nL, where *n disappears). In other languages the reflexes of *m and *n
in clusters with laterals usually coincide.
1.1.11.1.D. Clusters "resonant+back consonants".
PNC,PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*rK |
*(r)K |
*rK/(r)K |
rK/(r)K |
*K |
rK/K |
*(r)K |
*rK |
nK |
*K |
The resonant *r before back consonants is preserved
in PL and regularly disappears in PTs and PWC. In PN -r- may be both preserved
and dropped. In PA and Avar such a variation is observed before uvular
consonants; before velars r is usually preserved. In Lak r is preserved
in most cases, but regularly disappears before uvulars which yield Lak
q. Finally, in Khinalug, judging by the few available examples, *r either
disappears or develops into n.
PNC,PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*lK |
*(r)K |
*nK/K |
K |
*(V~)K |
(r)K |
*(r)K |
*lK/K |
*K |
The resonant *l, before back consonants, usually
behaves more or less in the same way as before the front ones. It is preserved
in PL (though we must specially note the development of the sequence *wVlK-
> *wVK- ¬ *wVnK-). In PN, PD and Lak there is a variation between the reflexes
K and rK (in Lak and PD lK may also be sporadically preserved). In Avar
-l- is sporadically preserved, too, although in most cases the resonant
disappears. In PA *l, before back consonants, regularly develops into n
(but in the sequence *wVlK- > *wVnK- > *mVK- this medial nasal disappears
through dissimilation; Avar in this position sometimes reveals not the
disappearance, but a dissimilative development *wVnK- > mVrK-). In PTs
*l first developed into a nasal, then disappeared, leaving behind the nasalization
of the previous vowel. Finally, in PWC we observe a regular disappearance
of the resonant in clusters like this.
PNC,PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*nK |
*K |
*nK/K |
nK/K |
*(V)K¬(V~)K |
nK |
*rK |
*nK/K |
(n)K |
*K |
The combination *nK is preserved in Avar-Andian (with
the usual limitation: -n-> -0- after initial resonants) and in Lak. In
PL *n is preserved before velars but disappears before uvulars (combinations
"n+uvular" are missing in PL). In the sequence *mVnK- the resonant -n-
can be preserved or disappear arbitrarily (*mVnK- > *mVnK- ¬ *mVK-); we
must specially note a dissimilative development *bVnQ- >*mVnQ- > *mVrQ-).
In PTs, after the disappearance of *-n-, the nasalization of the previous
vowel can be preserved (as in combinations with front consonants, see above).
In PN and PWC *n usually disappears.
PNC,PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*mK |
*mK¬nK |
*nK |
K |
*(V~)K |
nK¬wK |
*nK |
*mK |
|
*K |
The nasal labial in combinations with the following
back consonants is well preserved in PL and sometimes preserved in PN (though
more often transformed into -n-); in PD *m may be preserved in reduplicated
morphemes (i.e. on the syllable border), but usually develops into -n-.
Traces of labialization are also found in Lak, where we can sometimes discover
a denasalizated reflex -wK-, though in most cases we find the reflex -nK-.
This reflex is usual in PA. In Avar (as in the case with the combination
*mT), PWC and PTs the nasal disappears (and in PTs often, though not always,
leaves a trace as the nasalization of the preceding vowel).
PNC,PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*wK |
*(b)K |
*(w)K |
K |
*K |
(w)K |
*(b)K |
*(w)K |
The resonant *w is met more often before back consonants
than before others (though on the whole it is much less frequen than other
resonants). It may be preserved in PN (as b), in PA, Lak, PD (as b) and
PL.
1.1.11.2. Clusters of the type RH ("resonant"+"laryngeal").
Of all the subgroups of North-Caucasian languages
such combinations (and only a limited number of them) can only be reconstructed
for Proto-Andian. However, there is a whole series of phenomena that may
be conveniently explained if we assume the presence of such combinations
in PNC and PEC. First of all, there are frequent cases of the loss of non-initial
resonants in PD, Lak, PTs, Avar and PN, which rather often (see below)
correlate with the presence of RH clusters in PA. In these cases it is
natural to suggest a development of the type *-RH- > *-H-> -0- with the
weakening of resonant articulation in the medial cluster (a phenomenon
which is quite usual in other medial clusters, see above) that led to the
disappearance of the resonant, and ultimately to the disappearance of the
whole medial cluster (because intervocalic laryngeals are themselves very
unstable, see above). We must emphasize that in these cases there is no
question of any grammatical affixes ("determinatives") being joined or
not joined to the root, because in two subgroups - PL and PA - the resonants
in the examined cases are always preserved, and because in other languages,
if resonant reflexes are present, they reflect the same PNC resonant (and
not different ones, which would be natural, if we were dealing with reflexes
of different grammatical morphemes).
The second circumstance to which we must pay attention
is the presence, in PL, in many of the cases mentioned above (i.e. as correspondences
to PA clusters of the type *RH and to the dropped resonants in other languages)
of the so-called "tense" resonants *m:, *n:, *l: (on the reflexes of these
consonants in modern Lezghian languages, see below). This means that in
PL there occurred a process inverse to the one described above - i.e. the
strengthening of resonants in combination with following laryngeals, with
a total consumption of the laryngeal articulation. It must be emphasized
that the *RH-clusters are the only source of PL tense resonants; the sometimes
proposed suggestion that in these cases we are dealing with earlier combinations
of the type *mb or *nd is thus apparently unfounded.
The combinations "resonant+laryngeal" can be divided
into three main types by the character of reflexation in the subgroups.
We tentatively reconstruct therein the laryngeals *€, *h and *” (tense
resonants in PL appear in two last types of combinations, therefore the
reconstruction of similar laryngeals would be natural for them; however,
the question where to reconstruct *h and where *” is solved rather arbitrarily,
primarily because laryngeal reflexes are missing in most languages, and
PA reflections are not sufficient to determine the exact character of laryngeal
articulation in PNC and PEC).
Since Avar has both barytonal and non-barytonal
accent paradigms in words with *RH-clusters (see above, page 62, on the
connection of Avar paradigms with the quality of laryngeals), there are
reasons for reconstructing both plain and emphatic laryngeals in *RH-clusters
(the latter having caused the appearance of the immobile paradigm A in
Avar). We can thus also reconstruct the combinations *R‚, *R“, *R, that,
however, generally give the same segment reflexes as the combinations *R€,
*Rh, *R” (the difference between the combinations of the types *R€ and
*R‚ is probably also reflected in Lak, see below).
The development of the clusters of the type *RH
may be summarized in the following way:
A. Clusters of the type *R€/*R‚
PNC,PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*m€(*m‚) |
*m¬0 |
*mH |
m |
*(V~)0 |
m/0 |
*m |
*m |
m |
*0 |
*n€(*n‚) |
*n¬0 |
*n€ |
n¬0 |
*(V~)0 |
n/0 |
*n¬0 |
*n |
n |
*0¬n |
*r€(*r‚) |
*r¬0 |
*r(H) |
0 |
*(V~)0 |
r/0 |
*r¬0 |
*r |
|
*0 |
*l€(*l‚) |
*0 |
*rH |
r |
*r |
l/0 |
*l |
*l |
l |
*0(¬*l) |
*š€(*š‚) |
*0 |
*l(H) |
l |
*0 |
l/0 |
*l |
*l |
l |
*0 |
The variation between zero and non-zero reflexes
is observed in some cases in PN, Avar and PD. In PWC, in most cases, we
observe zero reflexes (which corresponds to the general tendency of dropping
resonants in PWC). Characteristic for PTs is the compensating nasalization
of the vowel preceding the lost resonants (which also confirms the suggestion
of original consonant clusters here - cf. a similar phenomenon in the development
of *RC-clusters, see above).
As for Lak reflexes, in the few cases, when Lak
and Avar reflexes are present at the same time, we have Lak 0 corresponding
to the Avar paradigm A (cf. ja : ber 'eye', ka : kºer
'hand') while the preservation of the resonant corresponds to Avar paradigms
B and C (cf. ula : er 'board, pole', ˆun : ˆ:i´nu
'navel', ªan : ono´ 'flat stone'). Thus, we may suggest
that PEC *R€-clusters are reflected in Lak as resonants, while *R‚-clusters
yield 0 (with the disappearance of resonants before *-‚> -0-).
B. Clusters of the type *Rh/*R“.
PNC,PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*mh(*m“) |
*m(¬0) |
*m |
m |
*m |
0 |
*m |
*m: |
|
*0 |
*nh(*n“) |
*0 |
*nH |
0 |
*(V~)0 |
0 |
*0 |
*n: |
0¬n |
*0 |
*rh(*r“) |
*0 |
*r |
r |
*(V~)0 |
0 |
*0 |
*r |
0 |
*0 |
*lh(*l“) |
|
*r |
0 |
|
0 |
*0 |
*l: |
|
*0 |
*šh(*š“) |
*l |
*l |
l |
*l |
0 |
*0 |
*l: |
l |
*0 |
This type of clusters is characterized by the presence
of tense resonants in PL (except *r, which only has a lax variant in PL),
the prevalent disappearance of resonants in Lak and Dargwa (except *m,
which is always preserved in Dargwa) and the lack of laryngeals in PA reflexes
(except the combination *nh > *nH). The latter may to some extent serve
as an argument for reconstructing the laryngeal *h in this case: since
the reflexes of the cluster types A and C (see below) in PA generally coincide,
but somewhat differ from the reflexes of type B, it is natural to suggest
that in types A and C we are dealing with the reflexes of the laryngeals
*€ and *” (whose non-initial reflections coincide in PA, but differ from
the reflection of *h: see above, page 61).
C. Clusters of the type *R”/*R.
PNC,PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*m”(*m) |
*0 |
*m(H) |
0 |
*(V~)H |
m |
*m |
*m: |
|
*0 |
*n”(*n) |
*0 |
*n€ |
n |
*(V~)0 |
n |
*n |
*n: |
0 |
|
*r”(*r) |
*0 |
*rH |
r |
*0 |
r |
*r |
*r |
|
*0 |
*l”(*l) |
*0 |
|
r |
*r |
l¬0 |
*l |
*l: |
*š”(*š) |
*0 |
*l(H) |
0(¬l) |
*l |
l |
*l |
*l: |
l |
*0(¬l) |
In this type of clusters PL has the same reflexes
as in the previous one, while PA reflexes generally coincide with the reflexes
of the type *R€/*R‚. For PN zero reflexation is typical, while, on the
contrary, PD (and, in most cases, in Lak) regularly preserve resonants.
As a conclusion to this section we must note the
preservation of the distinction between two lateral resonants (*l and *š)
with following laryngeals; this opposition is lacking in the clusters of
the type *RC (see above), which once again emphasizes the ambiguous character
of the phoneme *š in PNC and PEC (the possibility of regarding it both
as an obstruent and a resonant).
Reliable cases of combinations of the resonants
*w and *j with following laryngeals have not been found.
1.1.11.3. Clusters of the type *HR ("laryngeal"+"resonant").
In some nominal roots we discover correspondences
somewhat similar to those described in p. 1.1.11.2, but differing in several
respects. In some languages (e.g. in Tsezian and Andian) the reflexes are
just the same, but in others (e.g. in Nakh, Avar and Lezghian) we meet
a total loss of resonants and the preservation of the reflexes of laryngeal
consonants. In these cases we tentatively reconstruct original PEC (and
PNC) clusters of the type *HR, suggesting either the development *HR >
*RH or *HR > *H in descendant languages. Here we will list all types of
such correspondences, known to us:
PNC,PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*€n |
|
*n(H) |
n |
*(V~)0 |
0 |
*0 |
*€ |
*€r |
*0 |
*r€ |
r |
|
0 |
*0 |
*j |
|
*r |
*hn |
*n |
*nH |
n¬0 |
*n |
0 |
*0¬j |
*h |
(?)l |
*0 |
*hl¬”l |
*€ |
*r(H) |
|
|
|
|
*l¬l: |
|
*0 |
*”š |
*€ |
*l |
|
*l |
0 |
|
*l |
0 |
*”r |
*“ |
|
“ |
*r |
|
|
*r |
z |
*”n |
*n |
*n€ |
|
|
0I |
*“ |
*hI |
*‚n |
*0¬“ |
*nH |
0 |
*(V~)h |
0 |
*h |
*€ |
0 |
(*m) |
*“n |
*n |
*n(H) |
h |
*(V~)0 |
|
|
*j |
0 |
*“r |
*0 |
(*h) |
0 |
*0 |
r |
*r |
*r |
*r |
*“l |
|
*r |
r |
*(V~)0 |
|
|
*j¬€ |
*r |
*0 |
*r |
0 |
*(V~)0 |
|
*0 |
*‚ |
*n(?) |
|
*€ |
|
|
n |
*n |
*n |
*HR-clusters are more rare than *RH-clusters, therefore
in many cases the reconstructions are quite tentative.
1.1.11.4. Clusters of the type *RR ("resonant"+"resonant").
In a small number of nominal roots we discover a
variation of reflexes of different resonants. We may suppose that these
variations reflect original clusters of resonants, simplified in all descendant
languages. We can establish the following rows of correspondences:
PNC,PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*rn |
*rn |
*nH |
n |
*n |
n |
*r |
*r |
*r |
*ln |
|
*n |
n |
|
l |
|
*l¬l: |
*mn |
*n |
*m |
|
|
|
|
*m |
*0 |
PNC,PEC |
PN |
PA |
Av |
PTs |
Lak |
PD |
PL |
Khin |
PWC |
*wn |
|
|
|
|
m |
|
*w |
*nm |
*m |
*n |
n |
*m |
nn |
*m |
*n |
*wš |
*l |
*l |
l |
|
|
*w |
In some words it seems possible to reconstruct also
other medial clusters of resonants with *w and *j as the first component;
in such clusters all languages usually reflect only the second resonant
(though sometimes we see reflexes similar to *RH-clusters); as for the
first component, it is indirectly reflected in its influence on vowels
or initial consonants.
|