Print

Print


On 7/10/07, Dirk Elzinga <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> It is often the case that languages with a voicing distinction in the
> obstruents will still fail to have /g/ as a counterpart to /k/, so the
> lack of /g/ should be okay. By the same token, you can miss /p/ but
> still have /b/. (This has to do with the aerodynamics of voicing.)

See e.g. Arabic, which exhibits both of these lacks.

(At least MSA, AFAIK; Egyptian has [g] from MSA /dZ/ and others have
it from /q/.)

Cheers,
-- 
Philip Newton <[log in to unmask]>