Re: Nasalized fricatives ...

Quoting Tristan Mc Leay <conlang@...>:

> Andreas Johansson wrote:
>
> >I've considered having [r\] as the mutated ("fricativized") version of [r],
> and
> >even of "anti-mutating" [l] in non-mutating positions to [K\], but I do not
> see
> >any reason the definite form _shouldn't_ be dysfunctional in some cases. In
> any
> >case, it's hard to see what it could _do_ to [i e j w], at least as long as
> I
> >don't allow [j] before front vowels, which isn't gonna happen.
> >
> >
>
> I don't like the idea of [r\] myself, but I can't think of anything
> better (maybe [kr] just to be entirely evil and have no justification
> for it :). My vote is that [w] becomes [f] (via [W] and [w_h]) and [j]
> something like [S] or [C] (similarly). Any clashes are a good thing! [i]
> and [e], then retain the priviledge of not mutating.
The mutations that are now in are making stops (oral or nasal) into fricatives,
plus [s]>[h], which is also making the sound more "open", as would [r]>[r\].
Changing [w]>[P]* and [j]>[S] would be going in the opposite direction. And
despite the pure orthographic evil that would be _aeohas_ [aSoSas], I don't
want that to happen.

I suppose "opening" of glides would be turning them to zero, and while I'm sure
someone would pronounce _oime_ [wime], _hoime_ [ime]** to be the coolest thing
since sliced bread, the resultant phonologic wreckage would be too much to
bear. For historical reasons, *all* medial [j]'s and [w]'s would have to be
mutated (well, all medial glides not part of falling diphthongs, but that's bad
enough).

* No pesky labiodentals in Meghean!

** Which, of course, *orthographically* could just as well spell [jojme].

                                                               Andreas