--- In phoNet@yahoogroups.com, "H.M.Hubey" <HubeyH@M...> wrote:

>
>
> Richard Wordingham wrote:
>
> > --- In phoNet@yahoogroups.com, "H.M. Hubey" <HubeyH@M...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Richard Wordingham wrote:
> > > >It still fits into the "nearest-neighbor" shift pattern.
> >
> > > > So does [S] > [s] !
> >
> > > Don't think so.
> >
> > I've dug up some examples of [r'] > [z] and of [Z] > [z]. I

found

> > them at http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/6/6-1627.html . The
> > description goes,
> >
> > 'Similarly, it is not hard to get from a palatal /r'/ to /z/.
> > Some Polish dialects change */z^/ to /z/
>
>
> what is the star? you recall what I said?
>
> > and later most Polish
> > dialects change */r'/ to /z^/.

Were the asterisks needed at
<http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/6/6-1627.html>? Is it possible
that the mazurzenie dialects never had hushes?

What about the shift r' > z^? Is the starting point there
attested? I had assumed that, since it occurs in loan words (and is
active in inflexion, e.g. the vocative _Petrze_ of _Piotr_, itself a
loan word), we _knew_ that the starting point was /r'/ or even /r/.

The Indian example (a 3-way collapse!) still stands.

Richard.