David Peterson:
> Trebor wrote:
>
> <<As an aside, which is more reasonable (or are they all possible)?
> t -> l
> t -> h
> t -> ?>>
>
> Simple answer: /t/ > [?]. However, for this to be a unilateral change
> would be very strange. This is a sound change of English, though.
[...]
>
> Anyway, /t/ going directly to [h] is totally unrealistic. I can't see it
> happen.
People are probably sick of my pointing out that this or that bit
of linguistic exotica or impossibilia occurs in one dialect or
another of English... But here goes anyway:
/t/ goes to [h] in the Scouse dialect of English when (a) word final
and not followed by a vowel and (b) either in /@t/ or in high
frequency words like "but, not, get, got". /p/ and /k/ do not
behave similarly in this regard.
> I kind of think of /h/ and /?/ as the end of the line. Once a
> phoneme has evolved to either /h/ or /?/, all it can do is disappear.
Or give birth to baby phonemes through coalescence. E.g. /?/ might
give rise to phonemic creaky vowels or ejective stops. /h/ might
create a new series of voiceless spirants.
--And.