On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Roger Mills wrote:

> Yoon Ha Lee wrote:
> >Is it reasonable to have [c] and [c_h] (aspirated) evolve eventually into
> >the affricates [dZ] (gains voicing) and [tS]?  The change *sounds*
> >reasonable to me, but I am loath to trust my intuition.>
> Yes, seems reasonable. (I assume your [c] means a  palatal stop-- not
> affricate [ts] or [tS].) What if anything happens to other pairs of
> plus/minus aspirate consonants?  Are there original voiced stops too? and if
> so, what  happens to them?

Ack, I screwed up my own question because I was remembering an older
version of the phonology.  Apologies (though it's reassuring that my
*original* idea wasn't completely unthinkable).  <wry look>

Arakis has (in Kirschenbaum):

[p]  [t]  [c]  [k]
[m]  [n]       [N]
   [l] [*]
[f]  [s]  [C]  [x]

I was thinking that:
voiceless labials become voiced
palatals are diththongized:
  [c] / [tj] //
  [C] / [sj] //
diphthongs got reduced:
  [tj] / [tS] / before a front vowel
  [tj] / [t] / elsewhere
  [sj] / [S] / before a front vowel
  [sj] / [s] / elsewhere
the velar nasal was lost:
  [N] / k / #_
  [N] / n / elsewhere
alveolars? become voiced between vowels
  [t] / [d] / V_V
  [s] / [z] / V_V
  [tS] / [dZ] / V_V
  [S] / [Z] / V_V

And for the most part that's as far as I got.  I have the feeling that
I'm making dreadful hash of this--I can't figure out whether there's
supposed to be some general grand Grimm's Law sort of change, or lots of
little changes accumulating through the years, and while each change by
itself *seems* reasonable to me, I don't know whether they make much
sense put together.

The target phonology, Chevraqis, (I'm using "q" for [x], mainly because
it's been that way for over 5 years  and I had to think of some reason

[b] [t] [d]         [k]
[m] [n]
[v] [s] [z] [S] [Z] [x]
           [tS] [dZ]

(and the wretched thing still isn't as symmetrical as I'd like it to be.)

> You have *[voiceless] > [voiced], and *[aspirate] > [voiceless] -- the
> affrication could be a later development....?  That's why I ask about
> *voiced stops, and whether the change would affect the entire stop system,
> or just the palatals.

Hmm.  Perhaps I should go back to having aspirates to start with, and try
your suggestion and see where it takes me...?