Re: Which is simpler: /y/ or /iw/?

I can only say three things:

1. I agree with what Ray said: simplicity/ease is in the mouth
of the imitator/ear of the listener.
2. You should rather ask yourself what is most Algonquian and go
for that -- otherwise there isn't much point in the exercise!
3. The orthography may well masquerade as ON, writing yøǫ while
pronunciation is Alg /iw ew Aw/! Cf. modern Icelandic.


Paul Bennett skrev:
> I'm having yet another round of re-thinking about Uinlistka phonology.
>
> Old Norse has /y/, /2/, and /Q/.
> A number of Algonquian languages have /iw/, /ew/, and /Aw/.
>
> As far as I can tell, those Alg languages treat the /-w/ clusters as
> vowel phonemes (or something na(t)ively equivalent). Based on recordings
> of Ojibwe, I'd say that the vowels in the /-w/ clusters are shorter than
> "normal" short vowels, perhaps to the point where the whole cluster is
> about as long as a normal short vowel.
>
> Based on that, and knowing that Uinlitska is supposed to have developed
> among Old Norse settlers in northeastern North America, which of the
> following seems more naturalistic:
>
> 1: /y/, /2/, /Q/ simplify to /iw/, /ew/, /Aw/
>
> 2: /iw/, /ew/, /Aw/ simplify to /y/, /2/, /Q/
>
> S: something else
>
>
>
> Thanks for your thoughts,
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>