Funny W. More cold water.

[Rory M Larson]

> Guys,
>
> I'd like to bring up the extreme distributional skewing of */mb/, */nd/
if you consider them distinct phonological segments.
>
> I explain the skewing as the interaction of prefixes with root/stem
initials, i.e., morphological and phonological clusters.
>
> If we ignore the morphology and go with the unit phonemes (which I admit
we're sort of doing using the symbols W and R), how do we > explain why
these units only occur in very narrowly defined contexts?  Don't we already
have enough trouble with /glottal stop/?
>
> Bob

Exactly what narrowly defined contexts are we talking about here?  I
understand that *W and *R are virtually all word-initial before oral
vowels.  Any other restrictions?

I'd be very open to the idea that *W and *R result from an interaction of
prefixes with root/stem initials.  That seems like a very reasonable
explanation of their origin.  I don't think that should affect the question
of their phonological configuration though, unless we can also estimate
just what the hypothetical prefixes and initials were.

Rory
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/siouan/attachments/20061127/d7697d4e/attachment.htm>