126
diphthongs
79
with the central ia and back iu vowels. It is also not uncommon cross-linguistically for a high front vowel to palatalize a nasal. In my data, there are no examples of these diphthongs occurring with
any nasals, therefore, it is possible that when the underlying diphthongs occur with nasals the palatal nasal surfaces rather than the diphthong. While it is a possibility, more research is needed to document this as a
real process in Soyaltepec Mazatec. The only argument against this possibility is that the occurrence of ɲa
and ɲu is much more common than all of the instances of the occurrence of the respective diphthongs
with other consonants combined. The most straightforward interpretation of the data at hand supports the existence of all three of
the nasal consonants as independent phonemes.
3.3.6 Summary
Some general observations regarding the vowels and their distribution patterns with the consonants of Soyaltepec include the following. First, nasal vowels are less common than oral vowels
which is not uncommon in world languages. Table 3-8 clearly shows that there are gaps in the distribution of the nasal vowels, while Table 3-4 shows nearly complete distribution of the oral vowels. Second,
concerning in the distribution of the specific vowels, i, a and u are well attested with all consonants, while
ɛ is common except for its limited distribution with postalveolar consonants. Co-occurrence of o
80
is only attested in indigenous morphemes with k, h and ʔ. Although this is a limited distribution, there
are no conditioning environments capable of explaining its existence; it is more likely that the phoneme is underlying but phonetically merged with u when following labial or coronal consonants. Third, the labial
79
Diphthongs will be discussed in §3.4.2.
80
The rarity of the o can be traced to its development. Historically, the u and o are related. Proto- Otomanguean is reconstructed by Rensch 1976 as having only four vowels a, e, i and u which is
consistent with the description of Proto-Popolocan by Gudschinsky 1956 and 1959 and Proto-Mazatec by Kirk 1966. It isn’t until the development of individual dialects of Mazatec that the o emerges. In
Soyaltepec the o is derived from certain environments of the previous au sequence. Specifically, “In Maz-S when au is interrupted by h, it yields au where nasalized and ao where oral; when no longer
interrupted by h, it yields o.” Rensch 1976:115 Since o developed later in the history of the dialect, and from only one specific environment of u, it is not surprising that it is much more limited than the
other, non-derived vowels.
127
and sonorant consonants, i.e., p, w, f, l, r and j never occur with nasal vowels. Finally, the occurrences of the high and low vowels,
ĩ, ã and ũ are equally common while the mid ɛ̃ is slightly more restricted similar to its oral counterpart, it is limited with postalveolar consonants, but the
nasal is also limited with t , ts︢ and k as well. The mid õ is still the least common vowel. There are
a few rare occurrences of õ with m, t, s and tʃ︢ which do not occur with o; however, the nasal
vowel does not occur with k which did occur with the oral version. The co-occurrence restrictions based on OCP violations specified by Golston and Kehrein 1998
in their reinterpretation of Pike and Pike’s data for Huautla Mazatec 1947 hold for Soyaltepec Mazatec as well, especially if the restrictions are understood in terms of violable constraints. There is a question of the
over-restrictiveness of the [front front]
σ
restriction which needs further refinement to be truly applicable in Soyaltepec Mazatec. The restrictions, in general, dictate that a well-formed syllable should not have
common features between the onset and nucleus as this would violate the OCP;
81
therefore, nasal consonants should not be followed by nasal vowels and labial consonants should not be followed by
rounded vowels, etc. This is an area worthy of further investigation; however, it is beyond the scope of this dissertation and will not be addressed further at this time. Aside from the instances of allophonic alteration
which were discussed, all of the stated phonemes will be considered to be independent and underlying, even though the palatal nasal is especially suspicious.
3.4 Syllable Structure
