Re: Nasalized fricatives ...
| From: | Tristan Mc Leay <conlang@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Friday, December 3, 2004, 13:29 |
|---|
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.
--
Tristan.
Reply