Which is simpler: /y/ or /iw/?
|From:||Paul Bennett <paul.w.bennett@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, June 4, 2008, 2:49|
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,
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/