The reconstruction of Proto-Athabaskan phonology is still under active debate. This section attempts to summarize the less controversial parts of the Proto-Athabaskan sound system.
Symbols[]
As with many linguists working on Native American languages, Athabaskanists tend to use an Americanist phonetic notation system rather than IPA. Although some Athabaskanists prefer IPA symbols today, the weight of tradition is particularly heavy in historical and comparative linguistics, hence the Americanist symbols are still in common use for descriptions of Proto-Athabaskan and in comparisons between members of the family. In the tables in this section, the proto-phonemes are given in their conventional Athabaskanist forms with IPA equivalents following in square brackets.
Since transcription practices in Americanist phonetic notation are not formally standardized, there are different symbols in use for the same sounds, a proliferation partly due to changes in typefaces and computing technology. In the following tables, the older symbols are given first with newer symbols following. Not all linguists adopt the newer symbols at once, although there are obvious trends, such as the adoption of belted ɬ instead of barred ł, and the use of digraphs for affricates which is standard today for the laterals but not fully adopted for the dorsals. In particular, the symbols c, λ, and ƛ are rare in most publications today. The use of the combining comma above as in c̓ has also been completely abandoned in the last few decades in favor of the modifier letter apostrophe as in cʼ. Republication of older materials may preserve older symbols for accuracy, although they are no longer used, e.g. Krauss 2005, which was previously an unpublished manuscript dating from 1979.
It is crucial to recognize that the symbols conventionally used to represent voiced stops and affricates are actually used in the Athabaskan literature to represent unaspirated stops and affricates in contrast to the aspirated ones. This convention is also found in all Athabaskan orthographies since true voiced stops and affricates are rare in the family, and unknown in the proto-language.
Consonant reconstruction[]
The traditional reconstruction of the Proto-Athabaskan sound system consists of 45 consonants (Cook 1981; Krauss & Golla 1981; Krauss & Leer 1981; Cook & Rice 1989), as detailed in the following table.
| Obstruents | ||||||||||
| Bilabial | Alveolar | Postalveolar | Velar | Uvular | Glottal | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| central | lateral | plain | labial | plain | labial | |||||
| Stop | unaspirated | *d [t] | *g [k] | *ɢ [q] | *ɢʷ [qʷ] | |||||
| aspirated | *t [tʰ] | *k [kʰ] | *q [qʰ] | *qʷ [qʷʰ] | ||||||
| glottalized | *tʼ [tʼ] | *kʼ [kʼ] | *qʼ [qʼ] | *qʼʷ [qʷʼ] | *ʼ ~ *ˀ ~ *ʔ [ʔ] | |||||
| Affricate | unaspirated | *ʒ ~ *dz [ts] | *λ ~ *dl [tɬ] | *ǯ ~ *dž [tʃ] | *ǯʷ ~ *džʷ [tʃʷ] | |||||
| aspirated | *c ~ *ts [tsʰ] | *ƛ ~ *tł ~ *tɬ [tɬʰ] | *č ~ *tš [tʃʰ] | *čʷ ~ *tšʷ [tʃʷʰ] | ||||||
| glottalized | *cʼ ~ *tsʼ [tsʼ] | *ƛʼ ~ *tłʼ ~ *tɬʼ [tɬʼ] | *čʼ ~ *tšʼ [tʃʼ] | *čʼʷ ~ *tšʼʷ [tʃʷʼ] | ||||||
| Fricative | voiceless | *s [s] | *ł ~ *ɬ [ɬ] | *š [ʃ] | *šʷ [ʃʷ] | *x [x] | *x̣ ~ *χ [χ] | *x̣ʷ ~ *χʷ [χʷ] | *h [h] | |
| voiced | *z [z] | *l [ɮ]~[l] | *ž [ʒ] | *žʷ [ʒʷ] | *γ ~ *ɣ [ɣ] | *γ̇ ~ *ɣ̇ [ʁ] | *γ̇ʷ ~ *ɣ̇ʷ [ʁʷ] | |||
| Sonorants | ||||||||||
| Nasal | *m [m] | *n [n] | *ŋ̪ ~ *ỹ ~ *ŋʸ ~ *nʸ [ɲ] | |||||||
| Approximant | *y [j] | *ŋʷ ~ *w̃ ~ *w [w~w̃] | ||||||||
First person singular fricative[]
A peculiar proto-phoneme in Proto-Athabaskan is the sound that Krauss (1976b) represents as *$, and which Leer (2005:284) has represented as *šʸ though lately he has since returned to *$ (e.g. Leer 2008). This is the phoneme found in Proto-Athabaskan, Proto-Athabaskan–Eyak, and Proto-Na-Dene that occurs in various reflexes of the first person singular pronoun. In Athabaskan languages, it usually has a reflex of /š/, the alveolar fricative, but in Eyak it appears as /x/ and in Tlingit as /χ/. Peculiarly, in Kwalhioqua-Tlatskanai, it seems to have been /x/ in at least some forms of the first-person-subject verb prefix (Krauss 1976b). It does not correspond well with other fricatives, a situation that led Krauss to considering it as unique. This proto-phoneme is not given in the table above, but is always assumed to be somehow a part of the Proto-Athabaskan inventory.
New consonant reconstruction[]
A newer reconstruction by Leer (2005:284) constitutes a significant reorganization of the system. Velars are reinterpreted as palatals, labialized postalveolar affricates are reinterpreted as retroflex consonants, and other labialized consonants are removed. In addition, the clear assertion is made that stops and affricates are phonologically the same class, although they may be articulated somewhat differently. Leer also adopted the argument advanced by Keren Rice (1997) that there was no need to distinguish between *y and *žʸ. The resulting system is somewhat simpler than the traditional one, with 8 fewer phonemes.
| Obstruents | |||||||||||
| Bilabial | Apical | Lateral | Laminal | Postalveolar | Retroflex | Palatal | Uvular | Glottal | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stop/Affricate | unaspirated | *d [t] | *dl [tɬ] | *dz [ts] | *ǯ ~ *dž [tʃ] | *ǯʳ ~ *džʳ [ʈʂ] | *gʸ [c] | *ɢ [q] | |||
| aspirated | *t [tʰ] | *tɬ [tɬʰ] | *ts [tsʰ] | *č ~ *tš [tʃʰ] | *čʳ ~ *tšʳ [ʈʂʰ] | *kʸ [cʰ] | *q [qʰ] | ||||
| glottalized | *tʼ [tʼ] | *tɬʼ [tɬʼ] | *tsʼ [tsʼ] | *čʼ ~ *tšʼ [tʃʼ] | *čʼʳ ~ *tšʼʳ [ʈʂʼ] | *kʼʸ [cʼ] | *qʼ [qʼ] | *ʼ ~ *ʔ [ʔ] | |||
| Fricative | voiceless | *ɬ [ɬ] | *s [s] | *š [ʃ] | *xʸ [ç] | *x̣ ~ *χ [χ] | *h [h] | ||||
| voiced | *l [l] | *z [z] | *ž [ʒ] | (*y [j]) | *ɣ̇ ~ *ɣ [ʁ] | ||||||
| Sonorants | |||||||||||
| Nasal | *m [m] | *n [n] | *nʸ ~ *ñ [ɲ] | ||||||||
| Approximant | *w [w] | *y [j] | |||||||||
The asymmetric lack of retroflex fricatives in the Proto-Athabaskan inventory appears as a surprising gap, but Leer argued against them being distinguished from *š and *ž: "In my reconstruction, PA lacked distinctively reflexed *šʳ and *žʳ as opposed to plain *š and *ž". Although Leer (2005) did not include *ʔ and *h in his list of reconstructed consonants, those two proto-phonemes nevertheless appear in a variety of reconstructions in the same article and hence it can be assumed that they are indeed part of his proto-phoneme inventory.
Vowel reconstruction[]
Leer (2005:284) also offered a vowel system consisting of four long or full vowels and three short or reduced vowels which are more centralized.
| Front | Back | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full | Reduced | Reduced | Full | |
| High | *iˑ [iː] | *uˑ [uː] | ||
| Mid | *ə [ə] | *υ ~ *ʊ [ʊ] | ||
| Low | *eˑ [eː] | *α [ɑ] | *aˑ [ɑː] | |
The following table is adapted from Leer 2005 (p. 286) and shows the vowel correspondences between Proto-Athabaskan and the better documented Athabaskan languages.
| Language | Full vowels | Reduced vowels | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proto-Athabaskan | *i(ˑ) | *e(ˑ) | *a(ˑ) | *u(ˑ) | *əprefix | *əstem | *α | *ʊ |
| Denaʼina | i | a | u | i | ə ~ ∅ | ə | ə | ə |
| Deg Hitʼan | e | a | o | e | ə | ə | ə | ʊ |
| Koyukon | i | a | o | u | ə ~ [∅] | ə | α ~ ʊ | ʊ ~ α |
| Upper Kuskokwim | i | a | o | u | ə ~ [∅] | ə | ʊ | ʊ |
| Lower Tanana | i | a | o | u | ə ~ [∅] | ə | ʊ | ʊ |
| Ahtna | i(ˑ) | e(ˑ) | a(ˑ) | u(ˑ) | e ~ ∅ | e | a | o |
| Tanacross | i(ˑ) | e(ˑ) | a(ˑ) | u(ˑ) | e ~ ∅ | e | a | o |
| Upper Tanana | i(ˑ) | e(ˑ) | a(ˑ) | u(ˑ) | i ~ ∅ | ɵ ~ a | a | o |
| Hän | i | e | æ | u | ə ~ ∅ | ɵ ~ ə | a | o |
| Gwichʼin | i[pal] | i[pal] | e ~ i | i(o)[pal] | ə | a | a | o |
| Northern Tutchone | i | i | e | u | e | ʌ | ʌ | o ~ ʌ |
| Southern Tutchone | i | e | a | u | e | ʌ | ʌ | o ~ ʌ |
| Tagish-Tahltan | i(ˑ) | e(ˑ) | a(ˑ) | u(ˑ) | e | e ~ i | a | o |
| Tsekʼehne/Sekani | i | e | a | u | ə ~ ɪ | ə ~ i | a | o ~ ʊ |
| Witsuwitʼen | i ~ e | i ~ e ~ ɛ | a ~ e | u ~ o | ə ~ ∅ | ə | ə | o ~ ə[rnd] |
| Dakelh/Carrier | i | e ~ i | a | u ~ o | ə (~ ∅) | ə | ə | ə[rnd] |
| Slave | i | e | a | u | ɛ | ɛ | a | o |
| Dëne Sųłiné/Chipewyan (Li) | i | e ~ ə ~ ɛ | a | u | ɛ ~ ə | ɛ ~ ə | a | o |
| Tsuutʼina | i | a | o | u | i | i | o | u |
| Navajo | i(ˑ) | e(ˑ) | a(ˑ) | o(ˑ) | i ~ a | i ~ a | a | o |
| Apache (Hoijer) | i(ˑ) | e(ˑ) | a(ˑ) | o(ˑ) | i | i ~ a | a | o |
| Hupa (morph.) | e | e | a | o | ə | ə | α | ʊ |
| Hupa (phonemic) | e(ˑ) | e(ˑ) | a(ˑ) | o(ˑ) | i | i | a | o |
| Mattole (Li) | i(ˑ) | e(ˑ) | a(ˑ) | o(ˑ) | i | i | a ~ i | o |
| Galice (Hoijer) | i(ˑ) | e(ˑ) | a(ˑ) | o(ˑ) | a | a | a | a[rnd] |
| Tututni (Golla) | i | e | a | u | ə | ə | ə | ə[rnd] |
Tone[]
The reconstruction of tone is an issue of major importance in Athabaskan language studies, as well as for the wider historical linguistics field. The possibility of a reconstructable tone system was first proposed by Edward Sapir, although it took around a half-century for his ideas to be realized into a coherent system. Michael Krauss's unpublished manuscript on Athabaskan tone (1979) circulated for decades before being published (2005), and has become the basis for all discussion of Athabaskan tonology. Krauss gives a detailed history of the work on Athabaskan tonology which is briefly summarized here.
The early work on Athabaskan languages ignored the existence of phonemic tone. Father Adrien-Gabriel Morice was the first linguist to describe tone for an Athabaskan language, specifically for Carrier, in 1891. Sapir's first fieldwork on Athabaskan languages was with Chasta Costa and Kato, both Pacific Coast Athabaskan languages that lack tone. He encountered tone in Tlingit in 1914 when working with Louis Shotridge, a student and consultant of Franz Boas, with whom Sapir described the minimal pair /qáːt/ "crippled" and /qaːt/ "sockeye salmon". He then encountered tone in Tsuut'ina (Sarcee) and gradually became convinced that Proto-Athabaskan must be reconstructed as a tonal language, although he was concerned by apparently contradictory findings in Gwich'in, Deg Hit'an, and Navajo. His student Fang-Kuei Li, whom Sapir described as "a very able Chinaman", had the benefit of speaking Mandarin Chinese and hence being well aware of tone. Sapir and Fang-Kuei Li investigated tone in several other Athabaskan languages, including Mattole, Wailaki, Hupa, Dëne Sųłiné (Chipewyan), and Hare. The problem that disturbed Sapir and others was that tone in Athabaskan languages does correspond, but in an unexpected and difficult to explain way.
| Gwich'in | Tsuut'ina | Navajo | Slavey | Kaska | Hare | Mattole | Galice | Dena'ina | PA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| "head" | –kìʔ | –tsìʔ | –tsìːʔ | –tᶿíʔ | –tsíʔ | –f(ʷ)íʔ | –tsiʔ | –siʔ | –tsi | *–tsiʔ |
| "fish" | ɬúg | ɬúkʼά | ɬóˑʔ ~ -lóˑʔ | ɬùè ~ -lùéʔ | ɬùgə̀ | lùgè ~ -lúgéʔ | ɬoˑkʼe | ɬoˑkʼe | ɬiqʼa | *ɬuˑqʼə ~ *ɬuˑqʼeˑ |
It can be seen in the table above that the languages differ in how their tones correspond: the first three have low tone where the next three have high tone, and vice versa, with the last three lacking tone entirely. This issue puzzled linguists for some time. Both Li and Harry Hoijer both harbored suspicions that Proto-Athabaskan lacked tone entirely, but it took until 1964 when Michael Krauss published a paper in the International Journal of American Linguistics where he argued that Proto-Athabaskan instead had glottalization contrasts which developed independently into tones in the daughter languages or in some cases were lost. This argument was strengthened by data from Eyak which had a system of glottal modifications on vowels that corresponded well to Athabaskan tones, and furthermore by Jeff Leer's discovery of the Tongass dialect of Tlingit, which had a system closely corresponding that of Eyak.
The oppositions in tonal distribution are explained as an ahistorical division in Athabaskan languages whereby each language becomes either "high-marked", "low-marked", or "unmarked" for tone based on the Proto-Athabaskan reconstruction. The following table adapted from Rice & Hargus (2005:9) shows how the syllable codas of Proto-Athabaskan (PA) and the internal reconstruction of Pre-Proto-Athabaskan (PPA) correspond with those of the high-marked and low-marked languages.
| PPA | PA | High | Low |
|---|---|---|---|
| *VV | *VV | V̀V̀ | V́V́ |
| *VV' | *V' | V́' | V̀' |
| *vR | *vR | v̀R | v́R |
| *vR' | *v'R' | v́R' | v̀R' |
| *VVR | *VVR | V̀VR | V́VR |
| *VVR' | *VV'R' | V́VR' | V̀VR' |
| *vT | *vT | v̀T | v́T |
| *vT' | *v'T' | v́T | v̀T |
| *VVT-R | *VVT | V̀VT | V́VT |
| *VVT(-T/S) | *VVS | V̀VS | V́VS |
| *VVT'-R | *VVT' | V̀VT' | V́VT |
| *VVT'(-T/S) | *VV'S | V́VS | V̀VS |
| *VV'T(')-R | *V'T(') | V́VT | V̀VT |
| *VV'T(')(-T/S) | *VV'S | V́VS | V̀VS |
In the above table, the symbol v represents a monomoraic reduced vowel, the VV represents a bimoraic full vowel, and the V a monomoraic full vowel in a syllable nucleus whose second mora is '. The R represents a sonorant, the S a fricative, the T a stop or affricate, and the ' a glottalization of the preceding segment. Note that nearly all languages that developed tone have also lost syllable-final ejectivity, retaining only the glottalized sonorants and bare glottal stops in that position. (Syllable initial ejective stops and affricates are of course retained.)