Print

Print


On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Eugene Oh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> It doesn't appear medially, either (q.v. [suha])! :p

Ahem:

Aha!
ahead
ahoy
alcohol
Anaheim
apprehend
Bahamas
behold
...


> I assumed he was talking about a new language from scratch, anyway.
>
> Eugene
>
> 2009/9/24 Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>
>
>> But he started with English, where [h] never appears finally.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 12:16 PM, un.doing <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> > Wouldn't it be more likely to have suh <=> suNa? It isn't likely for
>> > voiceless consonants to acquire voicing word-finally.
>> > Eugene
>> >
>> > 2009/9/24 Peter Bleackley <[log in to unmask]>
>> >
>> >> The status of [N] and [h] in English is a good exmaple of why
>> complementary
>> >> distribution is not a sufficient condition to deduce allophony. However,
>> it
>> >> occured to me the other night that for a language with the right
>> history, it
>> >> would be possible for [N] and [h] to be allophones.
>> >>
>> >> An ancestral [k] undergoes one of two sound changes, depending on its
>> >> environment.
>> >>
>> >> 1) [k] >> [x] >> [h]
>> >> 2) [k] >> [g] >> [N]
>> >>
>> >> As long as environments 1 and 2 remain distinct, [h] and [N] will remain
>> >> allophones of a single underlying phoneme. Bonus points if there are
>> >> morphological processes that lead to such things as
>> >>
>> >> suN <=> suha
>> >> Nom     Acc
>> >>
>> >> Pete
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>



-- 
Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>