Re: THEORY: questions

Quoting Rachel Klippenstein <estel_telcontar@...>:

> So basically I get:
> People can't think of any natlang where native [h] has
> become any other sound, only ones where it is lost.
> Chinese [h] became [k] in early Japanese borrowings.
> People's conlangs have [h] becoming [x], [k_h] and
> [?h]
I've heard that some mediaeval Latin texts show "ch"=[k] were "h" would be
expected. No idea as to whether this examplifies a change [h]>[k] or whether
the scribe responsible spoke something that didn't have [h] and, like the
earlier-mentioned Japanese, heard it as [k].

[h], at least medially, can certainly change to [h\] and back. They're in free
variation medially for many speakers of languages that allow medial /h/.

AFMCL, Classical Klaish had initial and medial [h\]. Tairezazh and Steienzh
jettisoned it everywhere, whereas Telendlest and Searixina devoiced it
initially and kept it medially (with the evil twist that orthographically it
was also devoiced medially).

                                                    Andreas

                                                       Andreas

Replies