Re: Nine (was: Re: Back)

>From: J Matthew Pearson <pearson@...>
>Subject: Re: Nine (was: Re: Back)
>Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:48:19 -0700
>Oskar Gudlaugsson wrote:
>
> > Why don't you keep the /n/ phoneme and state that the sequences /en an
>on/
> > are realized as [e~ a~ o~]? That way, you can have syllable initial /n/.
>And
> > you save yourself two phonemes, since the nasalized vowels would no
>longer
> > be independent phonemes. Isn't there, after all, some law that says 'all
> > languages have at least one nasal'? (I know it also says 'all languages
>have
> > at least one plosive', but I think they've all got a nasal too.)
>
>Not true, surprisingly enough.  There are a handful of languages which have
>no
>nasals--most notably a handful of Salishan and Wakashan languages
>(formerly)
>spoken on the northern Pacific coast of North America.
Ah, ok. I was a bit doubtful about it, actually. But I'm sure of the law
that says 'all languages have at least one plosive'. What I'm wondering  is,
in monoplosive languages, what is the plosive? My bet is either /t/ or /?/.
Does any one of yall know any monoplosive languages, and if so, what kind of
plosive phoneme they have?

Oskar
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com