Re: Is this a realistic phonology?

On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, BP Jonsson wrote:

> It would be realistic if *all* of /ptk/ lose their aspiration after
> /s/.  That front vowels alone should have a voicing effect looks not
> very realistic IMHO.  That /k/ would become voiced in certain contexts
> in a lang that has no /g/ phoneme is very realistic, but the context
> itself is unrealistic; voicing between vowels or between voiced sounds
> generally would be more realistic.
Yeah, I've gotten that :)  I think that the influence on voicing is the
relative length of the preceeding syllable.  More realistic?  For some
reason /pt/ are not attested after /s/ within a syllable.

> > >> [q] is a voiceless post-velar stop initially, except before front
> > vowels, where it is an ingressive post-velar /`q/.  Medially, it is a
> > voiced post-velar fricative /H/.
>
> As for voicing in certain context the same applies as for /k/.
I was wrong. /q/ is always ingressive and voiced initally.  Both /q/ and
/k/ seem to advance before and after front vowels.  I was hearing myself
wrong :)  The /q/ does become basically a voiced /h/ medially. Is this
unrealistic?

> > # Does the [bb],[z],[q] series seem unlikely to have evolved?
>
> No, except that an alveolar *ejective* wd perhaps be more realistic
> than a click, in the context.
What is an ejective?

> Since you doesn't seem to use the letter {v}, why not use it instead
> of the {eh} digraph
Aesthetics :)

Thanks Much,
 yasmin.