Re: [tied] Greek labiovelars

On Ned, ožujak 19, 2006 1:58 am, Miguel Carrasquer reče:

> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:07:49 +0100 (CET), Mate Kapović
> <mkapovic@...> wrote:
>
>>On Sri, ožujak 15, 2006 11:07 pm, Richard Wordingham reče:
>>
>>> There's also the fact that some gaps in phonetic systems are stabler
>>> than others. For example, if a language has only 5 of /p/, /t/, /k/,
>>> /b/, /d/ and /g/, the most likely missing consonant is /p/ or /g/.
>>> Classical Arabic lacks both!
>>
>>And there is an example of an "illogical" development - Semitic *p >
>>Arabic f but Semitic *b remains b and Semitic *g > Arabic [dz^] while
>>Semitic *k does not become [c^].
>
> It does in some dialects (Iraqi IIRC).
>
>>I am not implying that Arabic would then
>>be without p, b, k, g generally, it could simply derive a new /b/ and /k/
>>from another source (for instance *q > k or whatever).
>
> As it is, some Arabic dialects have *q > g, to compensate
> for the g-gap, one might say.

I know. That is what some would call "logical". And it's a fact that
sometimes langauge changes are "logical", but sometimes they just aren't,
that's all...
By the way, all these changes are later than *p > f and *g > dz^. I seem
to remember on the other hand that there were claims that Egyptian [g] for
the Classic Arabic [dz^] is an archaism not an innovation so these
developments need not be the same for all the Arabic dialects...

Mate