From: | Philip Newton <philip.newton@...> |
---|---|
Date: | Tuesday, July 10, 2007, 9:24 |
On 7/10/07, Dirk Elzinga <dirk.elzinga@...> wrote:> It is often the case that languages with a voicing distinction in the > obstruents will still fail to have /g/ as a counterpart to /k/, so the > lack of /g/ should be okay. By the same token, you can miss /p/ but > still have /b/. (This has to do with the aerodynamics of voicing.)See e.g. Arabic, which exhibits both of these lacks. (At least MSA, AFAIK; Egyptian has [g] from MSA /dZ/ and others have it from /q/.) Cheers, -- Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
Jeff Rollin <jeff.rollin@...> |