Re: Re[2]: [tied] Re: Bader's article on *-os(y)o

Brian:

> Figure 3 gives sample waveforms of the second [d] in [dad]
> 'taste' and [da'duni] 'taste.ERG'; which figure or table did
> you have in mind? The displayed material on page 74?

Overall, Lezghian's monosyllables act a lot like my z-allophone
would in IE, however more like option 3c which I pointed out
predicts voicing after V (or rather *o in the case of IE) and
sonorants (which would be *n, *r, *l, *y to account for the
'Nominative Loss' of a voiced z-allophone). It was interesting
how it perfectly mirrored what we see in IE, that's all, for a
theory that is supposed to be contradictory to what I'm saying.
Plain ol' irony.

> Indeed, a major point of the paper is that it 'undermine[s]
> any direct phonetic licensing approach to phonology, such as
> LICENSING BY CUE' (i.e., LBC).

Does it really try to 'undermine' it or does it simply try to
modify it to account for Lezghian? I understood the latter.

> But if, as the author of the paper holds, LBC isn't tenable,
> why get excited about matching an LBC option?

I don't think that LBC is necessarily untenable. Do you? What's
your opinion?


= gLeN