On 12/9/05, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
> For similar reasons, Mark's "approximantification" is not accurate
> either, since there is no approximant. There is merely the labialization
> or palatalization of the [m] (and presumably of any other consonant in
> that position).
True. I read it the same way you did - as [mi] -> [mj], rather than
[mi] -> [m_j].
(Underscore? What underscore?) And I don't even have the
bunged-up-sinuses excuse.
> It seems to me that in fact there is _only_ coalescence: [mi] --> [m_j]
> and [mu] --> [m_w].
>
> I guess, because the coalescence is triggered by two vowels coming
> together, it could be term 'synizetic coalescence' (but not IMO
> coalescent synizesis).
I'll buy that.
--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>