Re: 'out-' affix in conlangs?
|From:||Alex Fink <000024@...>|
|Date:||Saturday, August 30, 2008, 2:39|
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 21:30:58 -0400, John Vertical <johnvertical@...>
>On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 14:04:27 -0400, Alex Fink wrote:
>>But many Spanishes have [M\] for weak /g/ (where some others have [G]), and
>>[M\w] > [w] is if anything even a more natural change. I don't have the
>>impression there's anything especially disfavoured about [Gw], though I
>>can't think of a good example offhand.
there are several Athabaskan languages that distinguish /w G_w/
>(presumably inherited from PA) but also several that don't. Does "several
>demonstrated instances of stability" suffice, or do you want "in *most*
>cases stable over long time-periods"?
The former is really all I wanted.
Do you know more details about the Athabaskan developments? In particular,
were there many isolated losses of /G_w/, that weren't part of more general
changes either to the labialised velars or to the voiced fricatives?