Re: another silly phonology question

On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Yoon Ha Lee wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Nik Taylor wrote:
>
> > Yoon Ha Lee wrote:
> > > No, I think it was specifically discussed when I asked about
> > > Chevraqis having [b]  [t] [d]  [k] with no [p] or [g].
> >
> > Interesting, so you intuitively ended up dropping just those sounds that
> > are most likely to be dropped if any stops are dropped?
>
> <rueful g>  I don't know if it was even intuitive.  I just didn't like
> the way [p] and [g] sounded!  Aesthetic intuition?  Beats me.  :-p
This is as good an argument for universals as any which have been
made. I suspect that many conlangs being developed by people who are
otherwise linguistically naive will show effects of purported
universals (as well as L1 interference--the "relex" problem).

Dirk

--
Dirk Elzinga
dirk.elzinga@m.cc.utah.edu