Re: Allophones Question

En réponse à Muke Tever <mktvr@...>:

>
> Spanish for example has /s/ but no /z/, even when it has /D/ vs /T/
> (in
> castillian) and /x/ vs /G/.
>
Not really. Castillian Spanish has neither /D/ nor /G/. It has [D] and [G] as
allophones respectively of /d/ and /g/ between vowels, but not as phonemes. So
phonemically the oppositions you're talking about are between /d/ and /T/,
and /x/ and /g/, not quite what you meant. Still, Castillian Spanish is a valid
example, in that it has phonemic voice distinction in stops, but not in
fricatives (so it has /t/ and /d/, /s/ but no /z/. It has /k/, /g/ and /x/ but
no /G/ - [G], again, doesn't count as it's an allophone of /g/ -).

> Ancient Greek also had /s/ but not exactly /z/ at one time.
The elusive zeta! ;))) Wasn't it /z/ at least at some time in some dialect? :))

  Latin too
> [I think
> it is contagious...]
>
Latin is exactly like Spanish, in that it had phonemic voiceless fricatives
(/f/, /s/ and /h/) but no voiced ones (consonantic V was /w/, pronounced [w]
always, and Z existed only in Greek borrowings, and I'm not sure it would be
pronounced [z] if it wasn't in Greek itself).

> And dont forget the many languages with /l m n r/ and not their
> voiceless
> counterparts...
>
I think voiced fricatives and voiceless approximants must be somehow marked,
i.e. somehow more "complex" than their voiceless and voiced equivalents to be
commonly missing in sound inventories, even those which have phonemic voice.

Anyway, it's perfectly normal for languages to have more distinctions among
stops than among fricatives and/or approximants.

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.

Replies