Re: Xinkutlan 1- Phonology
|From:||Henrik Theiling <theiling@...>|
|Date:||Friday, November 19, 2004, 10:30|
Geoff Horswood <geoffhorswood@...> writes:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 13:58:47 -0500, Adam F. <hypaholic@...> wrote:
> >I like the phonology. I have one question. Why did you decide to
> >have /d/, /t/, /s/, /z/, /S/, /ts/, /dz/, and /tS/, but not /Z/, and /dZ/?
> >I can't wait to see more.
> >- Adam
> Actually, I started out that way and then felt like I'd got too far without
> them to try to splice them in.#
Why even bother? Many phoneme inventories are unsymmetrical.
German has /S/ and /tS/, but no /Z/ or /dZ/ (apart from some loans
perhaps). German has no initial /s/, only initial /z/ (but medial /s/
and /z/ it has), again with the exception of loans. Both of these are
leading to some people pronouncing things in a funny way because they
stick to German phonology. German has /ts/ but not /dz/, this one, I
think without exception -- I cannot come up with a loan containing
/dz/. Also: /C/ but no /j\/.
Many languages have /q/ but no /G\/, but the voiced/voiceless contrast
is retained in /p/,/b/ and /t/,/d/ and /k/,/g/ in these languages.
I don't see any need for being symmetrical.