Re: Strange phonology

Raymond A. Brown <raybrown@...> wrote:

> >1) Have you ever heard of an aspirated trill?
> >I'm sure I've seen it somewhere, represented as
> ><rh>, which would be /r/ with a simultaneous
> >aspiration. I mean, it looks possible, but I don't
> >know if it exists anywhere and if it could contrast
> >with a non-aspirated trill /r/.
>
> YES - it's common in Welsh, written as {rh}, and you've described it
well.
> It does contrasr with unaspirated /r/.
Really? I thought rh was unvoiced and r voiced, and that
was it. Thanks for the info.

>
> >3) Is it reasonable to have an aspiration contrast
> >for nasals?
>
> YES - Welsh has them.
Same here: I thought mh, nh, ngh were unvoiced and the
others voiced. Is it actually unvoiced-aspirated vs.
voiced-nonaspirated?


--Pablo Flores

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
 And the Lord said unto Job, "There's no
 reason for it.  It's just policy."
                                       Kelvin Throop