From: Sean Whalen
>I've only increased the number of consonants by 5
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Sean Whalen
> <stlatos@...> wrote:
> > I posited a more symmetrical phonology to see if
> > extra phones would provide any explanatory
> > and each did.
> Little wonder. If you increase the number of terms
> to be manipulated,
> you increase the explanatory power of the model by
> allowing your
> creative imagination more elbow-space, but there is
> a price to pay:
> the model becomes less constrained and you expose
> yourself to
> Ockham's razor.
> > Sr-/str- isNothing's wrong with it, but it seems it wasn't so.
> > explained by sr>str and f>s, ...
> This, again, looks to me more like arbitrary
> re-encoding (rather than
> explaining anything). Why should one need such a
> rule? What's wrong
> with *str- being just *str-?
> In the languages thatMany languages lack sr- or str-. If a language
> have changed
> initial /sr/ into /str/ (Germanic, Slavic) the same
> change took place
> word-medially. You certainly can't posit that for
> PIE, and you don't
> explain why the t-epenthesis should have been
> restricted to initial