Further Questions on Phonology
|From:||Andy Canivet <cathode_ray00@...>|
|Date:||Sunday, June 16, 2002, 18:06|
I was wondering if it was reasonable to have a language that makes the
distinction between voiced and unvoiced consonants - but does not include
any voiced fricatives (eg. d, t, b, p, g, k, but only f, s, sh, etc with no
v, z, or zh).
There may be a historical work-around - by having some archaic root language
that did not distinguish between voiced and unvoiced, and then the modern
form that makes the distinction but only in a few cases... Does this make
sense? or would the language get all the voiced correlates of it's unvoiced
consonants once it opened the door to voicing any of them? Is there another
way to have voiced & unvoiced plosives and glottals but only unvoiced
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.