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

>Paul Bennett wrote:
>> 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/.
>
>Which series is simpler to pronounce is, I think, dependent upon one's
>own liguistic background. In languages that normally have [y] and [2]
>(or similar rounded front vowels), such as French or German, then I
>guess the Old Norse sounds will seem simpler (more especially so if
>one's L1 doesn't have [w]).
Front rounded vowels are a strongly Northern Eurasian areal feature, tho...
http://wals.info/feature/11
Uinlitska being surrounded by only languages for which this feature is alien,
unless it's in a strongly acrolectal position, I would expect the difthongs to
'win' here. Or even the rounding to just disappear?


>French is a most notable example. In Old French we find a very rich
>system of falling diphthongs and, indeed, a few triphthongs which
>developed from simple vowels of Vulgar Latin. But this whole system has
>no gone. The transition from Old French to modern French has seem
>drastic reduction of the old falling diphthongs and triphthongs to
>simple vowels. A most notable one is the reduction of _eau_ /j&w/ to
>[o]. (There's one example of the falling [Qj] giving rise to the rising
>[wa] of modern French - but that is a lone example).
>
>Ray
BTW, how do you figure it's [Qj], not [oj], giv'n that it developed from [ej]
(with a mid first element) and to [wa] (with a high first element)?

John Vertical