Re: kinsi rorotan: dialects and script

in kinsi rorotan:
/a/ [a]
/e/ [E]
/i/ [e]
/y/ [i]
/u/ [1]
/o/ [@]

this information could make a difference...

On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 23:05:32 EDT David Peterson <DigitalScream@...>
writes:
> Robert wrote:
>
> <</k/ is pronounced [C] before /i/, /y/, and /u/, and [k] before
> /a/, /e/, and /o/.>>
>
> Wow.   How did that happen?   /k/ > [C] / _[u] seems like an
> unlikely sound
> change to me.   Did [u] have some sort of an on-glide change
> beforehand?
>
> I mean, the change is explicable, in that /k/ > [C] / _V [+high],
> but I just
> can't see why that would ever happen for [u], and not, say, for [e].
>   [C] is
> essentially the unvoiced, fricative version of [i], which is why
> things
> palatalization and /h/ > [C] / _[i] happen.   And if you wanted to
> go further
> along the scale, the voiceless stop version of [i] is [c].   Going
> to [u],
> though, the stop version is [k].   What I mean is...
>
> [i] > [j] > [J\]* > [C] > [c]
>
> ...equivalent to...
>
> [u] > [w] > [G]** > [x]** > [k]**
>
> *Is this the SAMPA for a voiced, palatal fricative?
> **Technically, these last three should be labialized, too.
>
> Anyway, the way I think about it, palatalization, or palatal-related
> changes
> become less likely the further away they get from [i].   So, [i] is
> highly
> like, [y] is likely, [I] and [Y] aren't unusual, and neither is [e],
> [E] and
> [i-] are kind of getting questionable, [3] is highly questionable,
> and then
> when you get out to [u-], [@] and [&], it's becoming more and more
> unlikely--though [&] is the most likely of the three, I think.   So
> frontness
> matters more than height, I'd think.   Or were you shooting for
> dissimilation...?
>
> -David
>
> "imDeziZejDekp2wilDez ZejDekkinel..."
> "You can celebrate anything you want..."
>                -John Lennon

Reply