Re: Phonology/orthography sketch
|From:||Lars Mathiesen <thorinn@...>|
|Date:||Friday, May 30, 2008, 10:51|
2008/5/30, Benct Philip Jonsson <bpj@...>:
> Från: Lars Mathiesen <thorinn@...>
> > What happens if you have both /i/ and a rounded
> > vowel next to these approximants? Do you get
> > [iju] or [iHu], [uwi] or [uHi], and so on?
> It could only be [uHi]/[uj\_wi]
Where [j\_w] is the neutralization of the voiced fricatives... and
[S_w] for the unvoiced allophone before unvoiced obstruents? Spelled
_u_ as well, I guess, since those are the natural outcomes of the
//y// archiphoneme in that sort of position.
> > Are there any contexts where this could cause
> > the difference between //i// and //w// to be
> > neutralized?
> Oh yes, that would be the rule.
That would be very naughty if //y// didn't happen to be there.
> > (If /y/ would trigger [w] > [H] like /i/ does,
> > we'd have tuut [tHyt] for both //tu"yt// and
> > //ti"yt//, and maybe tuut [tyHt] for //t"yut//
> > and //t"yit//).
> Right on all counts; I forgot to mention that.
> Thanks for reminding me!
Except that we should get unvoiced fricatives before the /t/, so make
that [tHyt] and [tyS_wt]. Still both spelled _tuut_, of course.
> Come to think of it is probably the case that
> there exists underlying juxtavocalic //y//, [...]
I was just going to ask about that... see above for my conclusions.
> > Lars
> Gott att se dig här igen!
Gott att se att du fortfarande är här!
Lars (now living in Sigtuna, Sweden, but posting through a very old account)