Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: OT: Mismatched phonologies / accents

From:Peter Collier <petecollier@...>
Date:Thursday, January 24, 2008, 16:57
--- 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!