Re: Baby Babble Early Human Language?
| From: | Roger Mills <romilly@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Thursday, May 4, 2000, 5:14 |
|---|
>Allowed correspondances:
>T - s, t, d, d’, ts, z, t’, tj, tl, tl’, lh (lateral fricative), nt, dl, th
>(as
>in English), c, ts’, ch, sh
>I - i, e, o, @ (schwa), u, E, a, ei, ai, ay, y (front rounded), barred-i,
ia,
>ea, ï, ö
>K - k, x, g, h, kk, ?, hw, q, kh, k’, N, kw, xw, qw, ch, j, X
>
>As you can imagine, some words that are created from these sets hardly like
>TIK. To make matters worse, they allow completely free metathesis and
>deletion, and insertion of all kinds of sounds (mostly nasals and glottal
>stops). Worst part - they are willing to take any string with these
sounds,
>whether or not they are separate morphemes. Try Imihita _meuxtsekoa_
>"finger". Claiming that there is a connection between this and Japanese
_te_
>"hand" really stretches their credibility.
>
Well, it certainly simplifies Historical Linguistics.........