En réponse à Tristan Alexander McLeay <[log in to unmask]>:

> > >
> > which begs the question... am i still allowed to call it
> reduplication?
> You could say that /T/ developed from an earlier /th/ or something...

F**k! I was about to propose the same explanation!!! :(((

You could have some restrictions like the ones of Ancient Greek, where words
could only have one aspirated consonnant, meaning that when this one was
reduplicated (to form the perfect for instance), the reduplicated form lost the
aspiration (so a reduplicated form of pho would be pephomai instead of
*phephomai - note that I quote from memory, so my example may be off a few
letters :)) -). Then add some sound changes (like the fact that in Greek,
aspirated consonnants became fricatives) and your reduplication becomes quite
like what you have. In your case, you'll just have to find the right sound
changes (maybe the /th/ sequence became /T/ in a word, but lost the stop at the
beginning of words, becoming /h/).


Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.