At 10:38 am -0400 19/4/01, Oskar Gudlaugsson wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:41:35 +0200, Pavel A. da Mek <pavel.adamek@...>
>wrote:
>
>>Oskar Gudlaugsson wrote:
>>
>>>Final C (rhymes):
>>>
>>>Only /n s f l r/
>>
>>What is wrong with /m/ and /h/?
>>Let it be simple: only stops are not allowed as final C.
>
>[thinking]... You're right. That would be more elegant. /h/ should be okay,
>though I would personally pronounce it [x] in its final position.
Getting your average anglophone to pronounce either final [h] (a challenge
if ever there was one) or even [x] won't be easy. Why do you think we are
now saddled with all those weird -gh spellings?
Scots _loch_ and German _Bach_ are normally pronounced by my fellow
countrymen with final /k/; and Van Gogh becomes /v&ngQf/.
>The problem with /m/, though, is one of assimilation; by final /n/ only I
>meant to give assimilation totally free, and even allow final /n/-deletion
>in exchange for preceding vowel nasalization (as per French).
Sounds good to me.
>With
>final /m/ added, there's a problem: so it's allowed to assimilate
>final /n/, but not final /m/?
So what do we do to avoid assimilation? Put in an extra [p] as in _dreamt_
/drEmpt/? What about the sequence -mk- /mpk/ ???
>What about /anpa/ versus /ampa/?
They'll both get pronounced [ampa] or [a~mpa] or [a~pa].
>Or should we
>add a rule against /n/ + labial sequences?
But what about /m/ + dental/alveolars and /m/ + velars?
One could do as the Italians do, i.e. use {n}, except before bilabials
where the nasal is written as {m}.
Ray.
=========================================
A mind which thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language.
[J.G. Hamann 1760]
=========================================