Print

Print


According to my Phonology class workbook, /S/ is [+strident]. /K/ is
[-strident].


On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 3:08 AM, George Corley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Isn't /s/ usually considered [+strident]. That should isolate it from the
> others.
>
> Of course, natlang precedent would certainly be more valuable than
> theoretical points.  Unfortunately, I can't think of one at the moment.
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Matthew Boutilier
> <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
> > in my diachronic conlanging, i'm usually pretty good about sound changes
> > being somewhat categorical: if one uvular consonant becomes velar, i will
> > often arrange it so that they *all* do. it gives me a warm and fuzzy
> sense
> > of accomplishment.
> >
> > but right now i've got three sibilants, all voiceless:
> > 1. an alveolar /s/
> > 2. a lateral alveolar /K/
> > 3. a post-alveolar /S/
> > and i definitely want at least /s/ to undergo *voicing* word-initially
> and
> > intervocalically when non-geminate (as many Continental West Germanic
> > dialects).
> >
> > but i'm not so sure i want /K/ and /S/ to follow suit, mainly since [K\]
> > sounds a hell of a lot like [l], which i have (which itself devoices to
> [K]
> > word-finally!), and because /Z/ is one of my least favorite phonemes.
> >
> > how weird would it be for *only* the /s/ to undergo voicing?
> >
> > i know, i know. in German, /s/ voices and /S/ does not. but there's all
> > that voodoo of /S/ originating as a cluster *sk which i think complicates
> > things, so i'd rather not use this as a serious natlang precedent (which
> i
> > guess is what i'm looking for).
> >
> > thoughts?
> >
> > matt
> >
>