Re: New Language, minimal phonology

"Daniel A. Wier" wrote:

> >From: andrew <hobbit@...>
>
> >I found myself pronouncing "tama-at" as /tama?at/ which would introduce
> >a seventh consonant.  Two options come to mind: either vowel length
> >(tama-at pronounced /tama:t/); or consonant insertion (*tama-k-at).
>
> Yeah, same thing happens in Hawaiian; consecutive vowels separated by an
> "automatic" glottal stop.  Twelve letters, thirteen phonemes.
>
> Theoretically, wouldn't every language in the world have a glottal stop in
> its inventory?
No, not really.  If that were so, theoretically, ever language would have
all the rest of the stops along the three most "basic" places of articulation:
bilabial, dental/alveolar, and velar.   There are probably some data to suggest
that, like uvular consonants and glides, glottals are less frequently seen on
the level of *phonology* vis-a-vis these other "basic" places of articulation.
Certainly, there are a great many languages that have glottal stops that
manifest themselves only in the surface representation, like English word-
initially sometimes and German word-initially always (when it's used to make
a more "basic" syllable structure:  V(C) --> CV(C), thus showing a conflict
in basic UG phonology constraints).

======================================
Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
ICQ#: 4315704   AIM: trwier
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."
======================================