> 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.