Re: Would this consonant distribution be realistic?

En réponse à Steven Williams <feurieaux@...>:

>
> Labials - [p], [m], [f], [v], [w]
Or you refering to actual phones or to phonemes? If you are referring to actual
phones, then [f] and [v] are labiovelar rather than labial ([p\] and [B] are
the X-SAMPA labial fricatives). And if you are referring to phonemes, then you
should you slashes // rather than brackets [].

> Alveolars - [t], [d], [n], [s], [l]
> Palatals - [c], [J], [n_j], [l_j], [j]
> Velars - [k], [g]
> Uvulars - [R\] (I'm thinking about adding [q] and
> possibly [q_v], whatever the symbol for a voiced
> uvular stop would be in X-SAMPA)
It's [G\] (small capital G in IPA).

> Glottals - [?] (allophonically either [?\] or [?_h
> (VERY aspirated - pronounced a bit like a gasp)] in
> the initial position in most dialects)
>
> Please note the loss of the voicing contrast between
> the labial stops - historically, [b] shifted to [v].
> Is it realistic to have the only voicing contrast in
> fricatives to be held in the labials, rather than the
> alveolars?
Well, a few asymmetries are no problem. No phonetic system is perfectly
symmetric anyway.

 Does this violate any universals that I
> should worry about, or should I simply not worry about
> universals and just have a merry old time with my
> beautifully asymmetrical phonetic chart?
>
I'd say just go ahead. I see nothing really worrying in your system.

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.