Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Phonology-Realistic?

From:Roger Mills <rfmilly@...>
Date:Wednesday, October 20, 2004, 17:37
Vehke/Yann Kiraly wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 05:20:39AM -0400, Yann Kiraly wrote: > > Thanks for the reply! Would the justification, that f->v and z replaced > > s > > in some words, be satisfying? > > Yes, I would say so. If you want, you could work out the exact > conditions in which these sound changes take place. For example, /s/ > becomes [z] between vowels (intervocally), and stays [s] elsewhere. > > I'm sure it's possible to justify the complete loss of [f] by stating > that /f/ simply shifted to [v] in *all* positions, whereas the shift > [s] -> [z] was halted half-way. >
Consider these natlang changes from Fijian: Fij. /v/ descends from Oceanic *p; Fij. and all the Polynesian langs. descend from a common subordinate source (so we believe), and all PN langs. have /f/ (or some further development like h or 0). Fij. seems to have had a voicing rule for vl. frics. somewhere along the way... Oceanic had *s and something resembling *ns: for *s, Fij. has /D/, for the *ns /s/, but they are very mixed up; PN langs. have s/h/0 (mixed up) for both. The development was probably: Fij/PN **s > early Fij. **/T/, then /D/ by the voicing rule (while all PN developed **s > s/h/0) So presumably Fijian had an early contrast **T::s, but the **s was not affected by the voicing rule. Not unlike the situation Yann K. is trying to develop.