Re: Rhoticity
| From: | Eric Christopherson <rakko@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Thursday, September 6, 2001, 18:55 |
|---|
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 09:39:36AM -0600, Dirk Elzinga wrote:
[snip helpful third-formant info]
> Jesse already mentioned the *s > r change. There are also some
> interesting changes involving [l] and [r] in Romance (usually
> metathesis or dissimilation). Many words which are borrowed into
> languages without [r] borrow the [r] as an [l].
Ok. I'm looking at a possible sound change that would make all retroflex
consonants evolve into alveolars with some sort of rhotic touch to them (is
there such a thing as a rhotic coarticulation?); eventually I think this
will make the vowels r-colored and perhaps even lead to an [r] segment
creeping in. For example:
*[das`] > [das_R] (using _R here for rhotic coarticulation) > [da`S_R] (now
the vowel is rhotic) > [dars] (not sure which type of [r] here, probably a
trill)
Does that make sense? Or maybe:
*[das`] > [das_R] ? [da`s_R] > [da@`s_R] > [da@s]
Also, what is the difference anyway between /V`/ and /Vr\/ in English (with
[V] being a generic vowel)? Simply a transcriptional preference? Are there
languages in which /V`/ and /Vr/ are contrastive?
--
Eric Christopherson, a.k.a. Contrarian Conlanger Rakko ^_^
Reply