Re: Exit Methkaeki, (re)enter Mephali

Mark J. Reed wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 01:33:10PM -0500, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> > RM> Another thing that happens is t > ?, [....ni?.dZi]
> >
> > All interesting ideas, but if the /t/ becomes [t], why is there still a
> > [d] before the [Z] in that case?
>
> Er, I meant, "...if the /t/ becomes [?],..."
Ummmm...this was yet a 3d alternative--the sequence was something like this:

nit.Zi > nit.dZ)i (stop articulation of t carries over to the Z)
then t > ?

Maybe more accurately, it could also be: 1. voice assim. nit.Zi > nid.Zi
2. affrication Z > dZ/[coronal stop/nasal]__
3. [stop-a][stop-a] > [?][stop-a].

This is comparable to the behavior of geminate voiced stops in Buginese:
([dZ] written "j") /jj/ = either [d:Z] or [?dZ]. Note in the old Dutch
spelling, where [dZ] was written "dj", the geminate was "ddj".

If you just have (regressive) voice assimilation, nit.Zi > nid.Zi and
ultimately there'd be a shift in syllable boundary ...ni.dZ)i

A forward assim. of nit.Zi > nit.Si > ni.tS)i would also be possible, but
for some reason I just don't like that

Reply