Re: Austronesian style Latin...

Barry Garcia wrote:
>
>On 5/6/07, Roger Mills <rfmilly@...> wrote:
> > My only surprise was that C(E,I) and G(E,I) don't also
> > palatalize.
>
>Well, I had wanted to keep a few harder sounds without palatalizing
>everything, but of course, it would be fine to go either way. It's
>more stylistic than historical reasons. The outcomes of course would be
>either /ts/ or /tS/ for C(E,I), and /j/ for G(E,I)
If you have /tj/ > /tS/, /kj/ crossing tracks > /ts/ might be a bit
implausible. Something similar does happen during the development of Fennic,
tho, if you wanted to insist on that; postalveolar /tS/ stays put, while
alveolo-palatal /ts\/ "tunnels" > /ts_j/ > /ts/. And non-merging
affricato-palatalization /tj kj/ > /tS ts\/ is well attested. However, the
Fennic change includes depalatalization of *all* palatals - so then it would
be your /J/ that would lack a natlang precedent for exiting.

John Vertical

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Messenger - kivuttoman viestinnän puolestapuhuja.
http://www.communicationevolved.com/fi-fi/