Re: Is this a realistic phonology?

Sahla Autumn Yasmin Ajinqwai wrote:
>  Oops (sorry)... /sp/ and /st/ are not attested- only /sk/.
Ah!  A realistic, tho interesting, restriction, then.

>  Well, the /p/ and /t/ are always aspirated, and the /d/ is usually
> interdental.  The /d/ is sometimes devoiced [t]]. IOW, I'm not sure if
> it'sthe voicing that's making the difference, or a combination of things.
> Wouldn't this make a difference?
Hmm, it might.

> Well, I meant interdental :? (That's why I use <d'> to represent /T/ as
> opposed to <t'>.  That, and the fact that <t'> is an attested consonant
> cluster /t?/ )  Is this bad?
Hmm,  interesting.  So, it actually is an *inter*dental stop?  I know of
no languages with interdental stops, but I guess they could exist.

> Don't know what it is about the front vowels, but they change the way I
> pronounce all the consonants.  At least here, they tend to be tenser and
> higher pitched than the other vowels (especially when opening dipthongs,
> which is where they usually occur).  I've also noticed that they never
> preceed fricatives (except in /iS/).  Would this make a difference?
I don't know.

> Yeah, but it's an allophone of /q/ (post-velar).  /k/ is never implosive.
> I read about a language somewhere (sorry 'bout lack of refs) that had
> implosive /`b/ as an allophone of /b/ when it preceeded /e/.  I thought
> that might work with /q/ alone?
Really?  When it preceded */e/*?  That's a fascinating rule, I'd never
have thought it possible that /e/ would determine implosiveness!

> /e + h/ never happens (b/c no front vowels ever sound right in front of a
> fricative other than /S/).
Ah, interesting.

> Yeah, but I forgot to mention /aE/ also contrasting minimally with /ai/.
> Is it too radical to have all three? (Or /oi/ with /oE/, which do also)?
Don't be afraid of being "too radical".  :-)  Some languages have
bizarre diphthongs, I suspect that there are languages which can combine
any vowels into diphthongs.  Old English, I think, had a lot of them.