Word Initial Glottal Stop v. Zero

Discussion of natural languages, or language in general.
Post Reply
Richard W
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:28 pm

Word Initial Glottal Stop v. Zero

Post by Richard W »

How common is it for glottal stop and zero to indisputably contrast phonemically in word-initial position? I'm looking for a contrast that exists both in the lexicon and at the surface. For example, for German, it is argued that glottal stops are a consequence of stress.

On a related issue, should the term 'zero consonant' be taken to embrace glottal stops?

User avatar
Nortaneous
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 4544
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
Location: the Imperial Corridor

Re: Word Initial Glottal Stop v. Zero

Post by Nortaneous »

it's certainly attested. the classic example is hawaiian -- /alo/ 'front' vs. /ʔalo/ 'dodge'.

dunno how *common* it is, but UPSID lists a phonemic glottal stop in 48% of its languages, and i'd guess it contrasts initially with zero in a good portion of those. incidentally, UPSID reports a phonemic voiced glottal stop in nenets, which i'm adding to my gigabyte-large file called why_upsid_is_garbage.txt
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.

Zju
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 243
Joined: Tue May 08, 2012 11:10 am

Re: Word Initial Glottal Stop v. Zero

Post by Zju »

Nortaneous wrote:which i'm adding to my gigabyte-large file called why_upsid_is_garbage.txt
For those of us who don't use it (often), why is it?

Yng
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 880
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:17 pm
Location: Llundain

Re: Word Initial Glottal Stop v. Zero

Post by Yng »

In Arabic there's a word-initial contrast, although it's been messed up in various dialects. The distinction is there when the word is preceded by another word as opposed to utterance-initial. Utterance-initially there is a glottal stop, but it can be elided (sometimes but not always along with the following vowel) in utterance-medial or final contexts.
كان يا ما كان / يا صمت العشية / قمري هاجر في الصبح بعيدا / في العيون العسلية

tà yi póbo tsùtsùr ciivà dè!

short texts in Cuhbi

Risha Cuhbi grammar

vokzhen
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2014 3:43 pm
Location: Iowa

Re: Word Initial Glottal Stop v. Zero

Post by vokzhen »

Zju wrote:
Nortaneous wrote:which i'm adding to my gigabyte-large file called why_upsid_is_garbage.txt
For those of us who don't use it (often), why is it?
There's a large number of errors. Reporting the wrong phone due to scribal errors, or they just look at the symbol without even bothering to check to see what it's supposed to represent, or just flat-out wrong information that can't be reconciled (except maybe if they're using extremely odd sources that no one else agrees with). I thought I once even ran into a language that had a completely wrong inventory because they misspelled one language as a different one, but that might be me misremembering and it's not really *that* bad. Basically, UPSID can be used to help direct your searches into particular languages, but take absolutely nothing it says at face value.

Iirc languages can phonemically contrast zero-initial with a glottal stop, but that phonetically such a contrast won't be realized utterance-initially. There's no way (again, iirc) to distinguish between the initiation of voicing because of a preceding glottal stop and the initiation of voicing because it's the beginning of an utterance, unless a glottal stop has other effects like turning the vowel creaky. So if you're trying to hear the difference yourself, trying to say /a/ as an utterance and /?a/ as an utterance won't work because they're indistinguishable, you have to put them in context like with /sari a/ versus /sari ?a/.

----
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1418
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Word Initial Glottal Stop v. Zero

Post by ---- »

That hypothesis strikes me as not so productive, because if we assume that all so-called utterance initial vowels really do have a glottal stop in front of them, it becomes a lot more difficult to explain languages which develop word initial consonants like /h, j, w, ŋ/ out of apparently nothing. I think the situation is actually that epenthetic word [or more pedantically, utterance]-initial glottal stop is quite common, but in other situations there is/was some kind of glide going on. There's no reason they can't open their glottis and then only afterward proceed with airflow.

User avatar
Tropylium
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 512
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 1:13 pm
Location: Halfway to Hyperborea

Re: Word Initial Glottal Stop v. Zero

Post by Tropylium »

vokzhen wrote:There's no way (again, iirc) to distinguish between the initiation of voicing because of a preceding glottal stop and the initiation of voicing because it's the beginning of an utterance, unless a glottal stop has other effects like turning the vowel creaky. So if you're trying to hear the difference yourself, trying to say /a/ as an utterance and /?a/ as an utterance won't work because they're indistinguishable, you have to put them in context like with /sari a/ versus /sari ?a/.
Do you mean "acoustically indistinguishable"? There is definitely an articulatory difference (though I suspect a three-way distinction with also [ɦa] would be more difficult).
[ˌʔaɪsəˈpʰɻ̊ʷoʊpɪɫ ˈʔæɫkəɦɔɫ]

User avatar
Nortaneous
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 4544
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
Location: the Imperial Corridor

Re: Word Initial Glottal Stop v. Zero

Post by Nortaneous »

vokzhen wrote:
Zju wrote:
Nortaneous wrote:which i'm adding to my gigabyte-large file called why_upsid_is_garbage.txt
For those of us who don't use it (often), why is it?
There's a large number of errors. Reporting the wrong phone due to scribal errors, or they just look at the symbol without even bothering to check to see what it's supposed to represent, or just flat-out wrong information that can't be reconciled (except maybe if they're using extremely odd sources that no one else agrees with). I thought I once even ran into a language that had a completely wrong inventory because they misspelled one language as a different one, but that might be me misremembering and it's not really *that* bad. Basically, UPSID can be used to help direct your searches into particular languages, but take absolutely nothing it says at face value.
yeah, there are loads of language-specific errors -- it's almost guaranteed that any given language inventory will have at least one error in it. (in the case of nenets, apparently the glottal stops are word-final allophones of other consonants, and the 'voiced glottal stop' is an artifact of different consonants that reduce word-finally to the glottal stop behaving differently in sandhi.) and it's a very limited resource that relies on outdated papers ('nenets' is properly two languages, and the most recent paper it cites for it is from 1975) and probably won't ever be updated again. the only reason to use it over PHOIBLE is that PHOIBLE b. doesn't have search.
Iirc languages can phonemically contrast zero-initial with a glottal stop, but that phonetically such a contrast won't be realized utterance-initially. There's no way (again, iirc) to distinguish between the initiation of voicing because of a preceding glottal stop and the initiation of voicing because it's the beginning of an utterance, unless a glottal stop has other effects like turning the vowel creaky. So if you're trying to hear the difference yourself, trying to say /a/ as an utterance and /?a/ as an utterance won't work because they're indistinguishable, you have to put them in context like with /sari a/ versus /sari ?a/.
what, it'd be possible for a language to insert ɦ (or h, or a homorganic glide as in mandarin(?)) before word-initial vowels
thetha wrote:That hypothesis strikes me as not so productive, because if we assume that all so-called utterance initial vowels really do have a glottal stop in front of them, it becomes a lot more difficult to explain languages which develop word initial consonants like /h, j, w, ŋ/ out of apparently nothing.
palauan ŋ-excrescence was apparently morphological, but that still leaves nganasan for ŋ
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.

jmcd
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1034
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:46 am
Location: Réunion
Contact:

Re: Word Initial Glottal Stop v. Zero

Post by jmcd »

Word initial glottal stop appears to be default for vowel-initial words in German but IIRC in Gaelic it's /j/. Maybe these can be generalised further. Maybe it is a general thing in the Goidelic languages? Dutch maybe does like in German?

----
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1418
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Word Initial Glottal Stop v. Zero

Post by ---- »

Nortaneous wrote:
thetha wrote:That hypothesis strikes me as not so productive, because if we assume that all so-called utterance initial vowels really do have a glottal stop in front of them, it becomes a lot more difficult to explain languages which develop word initial consonants like /h, j, w, ŋ/ out of apparently nothing.
palauan ŋ-excrescence was apparently morphological, but that still leaves nganasan for ŋ
I could have sworn that there were even more examples for that one. I know Nenets also had the same change; e.g. in the word "nenets"

User avatar
gach
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 472
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2003 11:03 am
Location: displaced from Helsinki

Re: Word Initial Glottal Stop v. Zero

Post by gach »

thetha wrote:I could have sworn that there were even more examples for that one. I know Nenets also had the same change; e.g. in the word "nenets"
The full list of documented outcomes of Proto Samoyedic vowel initial words is ŋ- in Nganasan, ŋ- before back vowels and ɲ- before front vowels in Nenets (Tundra and Forest) and Yurats, Ø- before back vowels and n- before front vowels in Forest Enets, and Ø- (vocalic onset) everywhere else.

Richard W
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:28 pm

Re: Word Initial Glottal Stop v. Zero

Post by Richard W »

vokzhen wrote:Iirc languages can phonemically contrast zero-initial with a glottal stop, but that phonetically such a contrast won't be realized utterance-initially. There's no way (again, iirc) to distinguish between the initiation of voicing because of a preceding glottal stop and the initiation of voicing because it's the beginning of an utterance, unless a glottal stop has other effects like turning the vowel creaky. So if you're trying to hear the difference yourself, trying to say /a/ as an utterance and /?a/ as an utterance won't work because they're indistinguishable, you have to put them in context like with /sari a/ versus /sari ?a/.
The first point is a useful one, because it may be relevant for writing, especially if words are normally sounded out. The ease with which glottals stop consonants and independent vowels substitute for one another in Brahmic scripts had struck me, and I was wondering if it were just that there were no cases of contrast in the relevant languages.

Initial unaspirated stops have been reported to have an effect on vowels in Thai, and the initial glottal stop, often dismissed as unreal, has been recorded as having the same effect.

There may be another case where an initial contrast is possible. There are the initial clusters [ʔj] and [ʔw] which exist in various Tai dialects, and contrast with [j] and [w]. These contrasts appear in the native Indic writing systems.

gestaltist
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 125
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 5:21 am

Re: Word Initial Glottal Stop v. Zero

Post by gestaltist »

vokzhen wrote: Iirc languages can phonemically contrast zero-initial with a glottal stop, but that phonetically such a contrast won't be realized utterance-initially. There's no way (again, iirc) to distinguish between the initiation of voicing because of a preceding glottal stop and the initiation of voicing because it's the beginning of an utterance, unless a glottal stop has other effects like turning the vowel creaky. So if you're trying to hear the difference yourself, trying to say /a/ as an utterance and /?a/ as an utterance won't work because they're indistinguishable, you have to put them in context like with /sari a/ versus /sari ?a/.
I'm not convinced. I can hear the difference just fine without context.

User avatar
kanejam
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:16 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Word Initial Glottal Stop v. Zero

Post by kanejam »

gestaltist wrote:I'm not convinced. I can hear the difference just fine without context.
I agree; vokzhen seems mistaken.
Richard W wrote:There are the initial clusters [ʔj] and [ʔw] which exist in various Tai dialects, and contrast with [j] and [w].
Okinawan also has this contrast. The glottal stop isn't otherwise contrastive though.
If you cannot change your mind, are you sure you have one?

Here's a thread on Oscan.

Vijay
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:25 pm
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Re: Word Initial Glottal Stop v. Zero

Post by Vijay »

kanejam wrote:
gestaltist wrote:I'm not convinced. I can hear the difference just fine without context.
I agree; vokzhen seems mistaken.
Me, too.

Post Reply