Re: personal lang revisited

Daniel Andreasson wrote:
>
>Barry Garcia wrote:
>
> > Group 1. - b, p, m, w,
> > Group 2. - sh
> > Group 3. - g, k, h
> > Group 4. - t, d, n, l, s, z
> >
> > Groups 2 & 3 just have one sound each. Anyway, i think it's enough to
> > solve the problem of it being far too regular.
> >
> > G 1. - CaCiCu - PST - pasitu
> > G 2. - CiCCa - ShRD - shirda
> > G 3. - CuCiCi - KHY - kuhuyi
> > G 4. - CaCaCu - LSK - lasaku
>
>You could add further complications by, say, letting {l} and {n}
>belong to Group 3 due to some sound change in the past.
Or to mess things really up, you could say that one or a few initial sounds
can belong to different groups depending on the phonological history. For
example, if "sh" can be derived from either original "sh" and from original
[tS] then the words with the later etymology could belong to group 3. A few
such cases that aren't synchronically explicable would give the lang a more
realistic feel, IMHO.

                                                 Andreas
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.