On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Eric Christopherson <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On Sep 24, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Alex Fink wrote: > >> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:54:20 -0400, Basilius <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:37:24 +0200, Njenfalgar wrote: >>> >>>> I have this language (as yet unnamed), where I decided the following >>>> sound-change would happen: if two consecutive consonants (i.e.: with one >>>> vowel in between) have the same POA, then one will change. It would not >>>> be >>>> the POA that changes, but I was intending to do something else, like >>>> lenition or the like. >>> >>> (1) The idea is good and interesting to explore :) >>> >>> For example, the well-known restrictions on root consonant combinatorics >>> in >>> Semitic langs are, in all probability, produced by some changes of that >>> type. >> >> Well, except that the change in question doesn't change the fact of having >> two consecutive consonants at the same place of articulation. It would >> lead >> to funny cooccurrence relations, something like *C-V-(strong C at the same >> position), where "strong" means 'not the product of any of the possible >> lenitions'. >> >> Overall it's a strange change; I'd be fairly surprised if there was >> natlang >> precedent. > > It might come from an earlier state of affairs where one of the sounds is an > aspirated stop or ejective; some languages have synchronic rules > dissimilating such sequences, e.g. ancient Greek, which (IIRC) changed the > first aspirated stop to its unaspirated voiceless counterpart. Yup, leading to wonderful inflections like _thrix_, gen. _trichos_, where the nom. lost the 2nd aspirate to an earlier rule khs > ks. -- Andreas Johansson Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?