On Tue, 2 Jan 2001 13:35:09 -0800, Marcus Smith <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>This means that you can have onsets such as kl-, br-, tm-, fw-, and so
>forth, but not the opposite order: *lk-, *rb-, *mt-, *wf-, etc. The reason
>is that the legitimate examples follow the Sonority Heirarchy, with the
>more sonorous material closer to the vowel, while the illicit ones do not.
>Codas are the exact opposite. You can have -lk, -rb, -mt, etc but not *-kl,
>*-br,    *-tm, etc. Once again, this is because the more sonorous material
>must be closer to the vowel.
>The Place Heirarchy is also defined as you approach the peak of the
>syllable. In this case, certain places of articulation must occur closer to
>the peak than others. The relevant heirarchy for this is:
>Labial > Velar > Alveolar > Dental > Oral < Den < Alv < Vel < Lab
>The following are possible onsets: pt-, kt-, fs-, xT-, etc.
>The following are possible codas: -tp, -tk, -sf, -Thx, etc.
>Anything that is a permissible onset cannot be a coda and vice versa.

Do you have any restrictions for combining voiced/voiceless?

I tried to check if I can pronounce -utbktu- differently from -utpgtu-,
and the result wasn't unequivocal ;)

>counted [CVCV/vcC];[n,v,p],[t];[a,o],[a] -> navatp
>will count [CVCV/vccC];[n,v,p],[l,n];[a,o],[i] -> navulp
>make count [CV/vcCVC];[n,v,p],[s];[a,o],[i] -> nosvop

Can't get it where the vowels are taken from in this example.

>The future tense word [navulp] had a merged structure including -ccC, which
>is too many consonants for a real word. Therefore, the segment of the affix
>furthest away from the vowel is deleted. If both the root and the affix had
>contained consonant clusters, then both of the affix consonants would have
>been deleted.

Which may produce a lot of homonyms... :(

>If you made it this far, I'm very impressed.

Me, too!