Re: Sketch of New Conlang
- On Sep 1, 2009, at 10:54 AM, Garth Wallace wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Alex Fink<000024@...> wrote:There appears to also be /sanhunbetu/, "three-part
>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:38:27 -0700, Garth Wallace
>> <gwalla@...> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Alex Fink<000024@...> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:45:03 -0400, Alex Fink <000024@...>
>>>> Oops. Make that either changed from something else or just newly
>>>> from no historical source. It's the latter which
>>> No historical source? I thought at least some /p:/ came from /P/
>>> gemination (while /P/ elsewhere weakened to /h/, leaving [P] only as
>>> an allophone before /u/). Am I totally off base on this?
>> No, good point, I was being sloppy. Historical /p/ remained when
>> but the voicing alternation isn't in play there. And maybe after
>> nasals? I
>> don't recall what happened there.
> -> /b/, I believe. /san/ ("three") + /hun/ ("minutes (counter)") -> /
distinguishing" (which seems to be a Buddhist term, but I can't find a
definition of it in English).
- On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 01:06:47 -0700, Arthaey Angosii <arthaey@...> wrote:
>> And "last obstruent voiced, regardless of the position" is still kinda odd,Oh! No, that's probably word-final, but _absolute_ word-final, i.e. when
>> afaik. I thought you were going with "immediate post-stress obstruents
>> voiced", which seems more plausible
>Blevins' paper said "C-vd > Cvd/ _] (Lezgian language)" ... does "]"
>mean "post-stress" rather than "word-final"? :(
the very last sound in the word, not just when there are only vowels