<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Hi James,<BR>
<BR>
What do you think about classing affricates as stops? If they behave phonologically like stops, I can see no reason why you couldn't say that. I'm sure I've seen this done in certain languages before.<BR>
<BR>
Ryan Denzer-King<BR> <BR>> Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 18:11:19 -1000<BR>> From: jcrippen@GMAIL.COM<BR>> Subject: Stops and affricates and terminology<BR>> To: ATHAPBASCKAN-L@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG<BR>> <BR>> As far as I understand things, in all the Athabaskan languages the<BR>> series of (oral) stops and affricates together form a natural class of<BR>> consonants. Certainly this is true in Tlingit, where affricates behave<BR>> like stops phonologically. (Phonetically they are quite different, of<BR>> course.) The annoying thing is that I have to keep writing clumsy<BR>> phrases like "all unaspirated stops and affricates", or "all ejective<BR>> stops and affricates". Is there a term which unites both classes under<BR>> a single umbrella? Something like "obstruent" but excluding<BR>> fricatives? Saying "non-fricative obstruents" is even worse than<BR>> "stops and affricates". I have asked all of my local phonologists,<BR>> even the historical linguists, but none could think of such a term.<BR>> <BR>> Thanks,<BR>> James<BR> <br /><hr />Chat with Messenger straight from your Hotmail inbox. <a href='http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/hotmail_bl1/hotmail_bl1.aspx?ocid=PID23879::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-ww:WM_IMHM_4:092009' target='_new'>Check it out</a></body>
</html>