On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:20:59 -0400, Basilius <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:25:56 -0400, Alex Fink wrote:
>> Well, except that the change in question doesn't change the fact of
>> having two consecutive consonants at the same place of articulation.
>It depends on how far the "lenition" goes :)
>[...] the option of a more radical
>"lenition" (e. g. to a glide or a laryngeal) :)

Heh, or to zero, if you call that "lenition" :-p   Fair point, anyways.

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:40:45 -0500, Eric Christopherson <[log in to unmask]>

>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.

Yes, perhaps I should have stated an exception for cases like this, where
the consonants have to match in features beyond PoA to trigger the change,
aspiration or glottalisation or whatever.  Those things certainly occur --
I've used aspirate dissimilation in my own Sabasasaj.  Even so, PoA wouldn't
have any relevance in the usual cases, and it would be strange if it did:
[t_>Vt_>] and [k_>Vk_>] dissimilate but [t_>Vk_>] doesn't?