Ant: Re: Question about T and D

--- "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.na] --> [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: http://mail.yahoo.de

Replies