Re: phonological markedness [was Re: Happy New Year (to some)]

Some people wrote, and I noted:

> > > > "ra" is subject, "ro" (direct) object, "ru" the verb.
> > >
> > > This seems to be an unlikely kind of alliteration in a natural
> > > language.  The only phonological difference between agents and
> > > patients appears to be the fact that the vowel of one particle
> > > is [+low], and the other is [-low], and are otherwise identical!
> >
> > Well, Japanese has wa for topic (frequently, tho not always, subject)
> > and wo for accusative.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't <wo> phonologically /o/?
> Besides which, my point was that such a circumstance is
> unlikely, not that it can't happen!  The point of phonological
> contrast is, afterall, to have contrast.
It is now. Historically, however, it wasn't. Japanese is slowly losing the
/w/ sound. They used to have "wu" and "we", but those are now "u" and "e".
Although, the historicalness still shows up, the most prominant I can think
of is negating the informal. "kau"->"kawanai". "kau" was originally "kawu".

I personally find it fairly strange that a language that is already
phonetically impovished (sp) is losing yet another consonant. But that's
what seems to be happening.

-Keith

Reply