Re: Further Questions on Phonology

>From: Nik Taylor <fortytwo@...>
>Reply-To: Constructed Languages List <CONLANG@...>
>To: CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU
>Subject: Re: Further Questions on Phonology
>Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 15:20:24 -0400
>
>Andy Canivet wrote:
> > 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).
>
>Sure.  Lots of langs are that way.  Old English, for example, had voiced
>fricatives only as allophones of the voiceless ones (hence modern
>alternations like wolf/wolves or wife/wives).  Modern Spanish is,
>arguably, that way too, altho the voiced stops are more often than not
>pronounced as voiced fricatives, so you could say that it's the stops
>that lack the distinction, while the fricatives possess it.  Latin,
>except in Greek loans, had no voiced fricatives, either.  Greek, at one
>stage of its development, had voiced and voiceless fricatives, but only
>voiceless stops.
>
Thanks guys - this helps out a lot - call it "newbie conlanger anxiety," but
for some reason I started to wonder if this was possible, and if I would
have to re-write my phonology (again!)...  BTW - thanks very much Pablo for
your Language Creation pages too - they've helped out quite a bit over the
past year or so.

Andy

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx