Print

Print


fyi, my tentative solution:

dentals > velars / in the environment of back vowels.
t_H > k_H
t > k
d > g

i have heard a lot of things recently about 'velar > uvular' in this
environment (even in dialects of english) so i do not think my solution
that far-fetched!

matt


On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 11:41:41 -0600, Matthew Boutilier <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >anyway, once you had /x/, i suppose to move back into the realm of
> plosives
> >you could do
> >x > G > g (> k)
> >all but the last step being part of Verner's law, of course.
>
> I would imagine you could even do [x] > [k] in one go, if you had to.  I
> can't cite an instance of that directly, but it seems ample precedent that
> [s] > [t] is possible (e.g. Vietnamese, some Austronesian examples that
> Roger cited a little back).
>
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 20:34:11 -0600, Eric Christopherson <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> >Arapaho, probably:
> http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1103a&L=conlang&P=821
>
> Awesome, I'll fold that into the article.
>
> Alex
>