Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Ant: Re: Question about T and D

From:Steven Williams <feurieaux@...>
Date:Tuesday, September 20, 2005, 23:26
--- "David J. Peterson" <dedalvs@...> schrieb:

> Ph. D. wrote: > << > Phonology is not my strong suit. I want to include
[T] and [D] in my conlang. Can someone suggest what sounds might develop into [T] and [D] (and under what conditions) in a languages which does not have those sounds? I'm looking for something plausible here.
> >>
We-e-e-ell, as noted, the Germanic languages got their [T] from [t], which spirantized. Fairly common soundchange. [D] came from [T] between vowels, which triggered voicing, or [d], which spirantized in a manner analogous to [t]. The Semitic languages got their [T]'s and [D]'s from the intervocalic and syllable-final spirantization of plosives, commonly known by the acronym 'begad kefat' (at least in Hebrew). Simply put, the plosives [b], [g], [d], [k], [p] and [t] fricativize into [v], [G], [D], [x], [f] and [T]. This basic theme runs through Hebrew at least. Another interesting evolution is Latin palatalized [k] to Castillian Spanish [T]: [k] (before [e] and [i]) --> [tS] --> [ts] --> [T] [K] --> [T] seems pretty likely, if you like lateral fricatives (I, for one, adore them). [n] --> [D] doesn't strike me as too far-fetched, either, as long as the environment's right. Examples of what I'm thinking about here: [] --> [a_n.da] (not too likely, but still possible) --> [a:.da] --> [a:.Da] [an.ra] --> [aD.ra] Does this help you out any? ___________________________________________________________ Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden:


Ph.D. <phil@...>Question about T and D
Steg Belsky <draqonfayir@...>
Roger Mills <rfmilly@...>Question about T and D