Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

150511Re: your opinion

Expand Messages
  • Reilly Schlaier
    Jan 1, 2008
      >
      >I gathered you're trying to do this, in essence:
      >-1- [i I e] become [i\ I\ @] before a retroflex
      >-2- [i\ I\ @] become [M U 7] everywhere
      >-1'- [@] becomes [I\] everywhere
      >-2'- [I\] becomes [i\] everywhere
      >
      >But change -2-, which I'd argue to be unconditioned "drift" (ie. once the
      >front vowels have developed the backed allophones, the retroflexes aren't
      >"needed" any more for the further backing) should mess up either the input
      >or output of changes -1'- and -2'-. OK, in theory it's possible that even
      >-0'- [n= l=] become [@n @l] everywhere
      >occurs after change -2- so the "vowel trajectories" would not strictly cross
      >— but in your Big Inventory here, I just don't think an epenthetic vowel
      >would take on a quality different from all the phonemic vowels. Altho I can
      >see why you wouldn't *like* that; you'd get new intervocalic [k], which
      >would mess up your neat "cross-allophonic" stop-system, in part.
      >akn [akUn] = /akUn/ not /akn/
      >akun [agUn] = /agUn/ not /akUn/
      >agun [aGUn] = /aGUn/ not /agUn/

      okay
      i think ive got it
      and now my head hurts lol
      but it seems to me that the only way to avoid messing up my neat :) system
      is to either voice it akn [agn=] or devoice the 'n' getting akn [ak_n] ish
    • Show all 15 messages in this topic