OT: t > h (was: What makes a good conlang? (was Re: Super OT: Re: CHAT : JRRT)
|From:||And Rosta <a.rosta@...>|
|Date:||Friday, March 12, 2004, 18:27|
> 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
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.