Re: Constructive Criticism Appreciated

From: David Peterson

> Just out of curiosity: Why no pharyngealied [q], and no ejective
> pharyngealized [q]?
I'd say that one you pharyngealized [k], he'd most likely get [q]. Arabic,
Tamazight and Egyptian got /q/ from Proto-Semitic *k_> because emphasis in
emphatic consonants changed from glottalization/ejectivity to
pharyngealization.

> (I've now managed to get side-tracked trying to pronounce an
> Another interesting point: Why aren't you sure if you're going to
> add nasals?  Do you dislike them?  Ooh, maybe rather than having
> nasal phonemes, you could have nasalized vowels, and then the
> nasalization could spread (by some means) to the consonants, so
> that, say, if a /t/ came in contact with a nasalized vowel it would
> become [n].  That'd be interesting.
Baybe his codculture is sufferig frob a cold epidebic! ;) Seriously, Rotokas
and a few other languages completely lack nasals, so it's not unreasonable.

Replies