Re: OT: Mismatched phonologies / accents

--- Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...> wrote:

>
> I think it makes sense the way it is.  (I assume
> that /b d g f/
> go to /B D G p\/ respectively, which is just fine.)
/b d g/ > /B D G/ yes; but at the moment, per my older
GMP, I have /f/ > /T/ (with /p_h/ > /p\/), but I may
review that once I've worked out what to do about all
these 'unpronouncable' palatisations. I'm happy enough
with those older GMP changes, but now I have /S/ >
/T/, I'm not sure if I still want /f/ going there as
well. I'm sure the 2 sounds would be distinctive to a
non-native speaker, even if they couldn't accurately
reproduce them. Now I have more details on VL, it also
looks as if /p_h/ > /p/ very early on (pre-imperial?)
and the <PH> / <F> distinction was just orthographic?

If you want to give me your 2c on that as well I'd be grateful!