Re: Phonological terminology question

Daniel Andreasson wrote:
>Andreas Johansson wrote:
>
> > That ought to be a voiceless palatal approximant rather than a fullblown
> > fricative, oughtn't it? I better don't ask how to IPAize a voiceless
> > ingressive palatal approximant ...
>
>Yes, you're right. Though this discussion is as navel-gazing
>as it gets by now. Or could we narrow it down even further? :)
I'm sure we could, but a more productive approach would be if we started to
make a conlang where the difference between a voiceless palatal ingressive
approximant and a voiceless palatal ingressive fricative was phonemic,
thereby triggering the law that anything one can think up for a conlang
occurs in some natlang in ten-times-worse form ... :-)

                                          Andreas

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963