Re: /W/ without /w/?
|From:||Thomas R. Wier <trwier@...>|
|Date:||Saturday, November 13, 2004, 6:43|
From: "Adam F." <hypaholic@...>
> English (at least where I live) has the voiced bilabial approximant, and
> historically English also had a voiceless bilabial approximant.
Do you mean approximant? In all dialects I know of that still preserve
a contrast between <w> and <wh>, the latter is a voiceless bilabial
fricative, not an approximant. (True voiceless approximants are *very*
marked, if not nonexistent.)
> dialects still preserve this in words like 'white' and 'which'. So, I
> think it is highly possible that a language could just have a voiceless
> labial-velar approximant.
This doesn't really follow, since the language in question also has
[w]. The question was whether there is really some implicational universal
a la Greeberg "if [W] then also [w]", and I know of no language that violates
Thomas Wier "I find it useful to meet my subjects personally,
Dept. of Linguistics because our secret police don't get it right
University of Chicago half the time." -- octogenarian Sheikh Zayed of
1010 E. 59th Street Abu Dhabi, to a French reporter.
Chicago, IL 60637