Re: Consonant Clusters at the End of Words
Rob Zook
Wed, 12 Nov 1997 16:42:14 -0600
At 02:53 PM 11/12/97 -0600, you wrote:
>
>a palatal fricative. Also, since Vulcan doesn't otherwise have a dental
>fricative, we'd probably end up with a phonetic realization of [ds] for
>/dth/.
Hmmm. Actually I was thinking of the opposite, a phonemic /dth/ but
realized as the [dth] where the
was the fricative.
>>Unfortunately, this does not seem quite consisant either, because
>>p -> f and k -> ch does not have the same relationship as t -> th.
>
>k -> x is the same relationship, though. As is p -> wh. Oh, wait. Do you
>mean the aspirate or the fricative th?
I mean the fricative. For example the IPA chart shows no dental stops,
and t is a voiceless alveolar stop. So with t -> th not only does the
amount of closure change as in p -> f, and k -> ch, but the point of
articulation changes as well, because th as realized in English is
a dental fricative not a alveolar fricative.
>> appears in k'wawl, and in this case the aw could be some kind
>>of vowel dipthong maybe /ao/? If not, perhaps you can have an
>>[approximate]+[lateral] at the end of a word: yl wl.
>
>It winds up being much the same thing. I tend to restrict approximates to
>occuring before vowels, but that's just me.
Well, lets look at an English example, "bowl". In that case not only
do you have a diphthong, but in the dialect I speak you have an ending
[wl] sound.
>>Or if /w/
>>does indeed represent a voiced bilabial fricative as Saul suggests
>>it could mean you can have [fricative]+[labial] at the end of a
>>word: fl vl sl zl cl jl xl hl.
>
>Or we could change _this_ w to u. But the clusters above would be OK as
>well. We could expand it to fricative+approximant. French-flavored with
>l, Russian-flavored with y. They wouldn't phonetically be clusters,
>probably, but lateralized and palatalized consonants.
Hmmm. Maybe you can explain the difference?
>>Did I understand you aright Saul? In your last message you suggested
>>/w/ was also a fricative. Since /wh/ is already the voiceless, that
>>would seem to make /w/ voiced. Frankly, I'd rather see a voiced
>>approximate with a voiceless allophone.
>
>Mm. The difference between a voiced approximate and a voiced fricative is
>tiny. The only thing I'm trying to do here is secure an orderly role for
>wh/w in the phonology. Even if /w/ is phonemically a fricative, it might
>almost always be pronounced as an approximant.
So you would say /wh/ and /w/ both fricatives with approximate
allophones?
>>khp khb kht khd khk khg khq
>>th thb tht thd thk thg thq
>>dh dhb dht dhd dhk dhg dhq
>>
>>I kind of like these simply because of their exoticness. That could
>>give us words like qyoodhk or kakhg which look nice and tricky to
>>pronounce ;-)
>
>That almost makes it look like h is a voiceless form of <'>.
Similar. I think /h/ is a voiceless glottal fricative.
--------------------------------------------------------
Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid
by education.
-- Bertrand Russell
|