--- "Brian M. Scott" <
BMScott@...> wrote:
> At 6:52:53 AM on Thursday, February 8, 2007, Sean
> Whalen
> wrote:
>
> > Therefore as ju>ji so im>uw here or something
> similar. Not
> > an exact parallel, just a similar change in the
> opposite
> > direction.
>
> I don't really see how it's similar.
I just wanted to show that since u>i in
one environment associated with pal. it
would be possible for i>u in another
associated with lips or round or back.
> A change wi >
> wu would
> be similar but in the opposite direction, and I
> suppose that
> iw > uw could qualify, if we take 'direction' in two
> senses,
> but I don't see an obvious phonetic motivation for
> im > uw;
> are you attributing backness to /m/?
No. But if m>w in a certain environment
the [-front] feature may spread to a V in
the same syllable. Changes like mi>mu or
pi>pu happen even without front/back
having anything to do with it, just the
importance of lips.
Also, there were no *uj- in a syllable,
maybe no *wi if w>wY or w>vY there at the
time of these changes. Therefore since
I already believed m>w in certain places
these are the closest possible matches
for parallel developments.
The reason I associated u with both labial
and velar C in my earlier description was
simply because a syllabic C > uC after plain
P/K. Not necessarily because they share
a feature but because they contrast with
palatal variants.
____________________________________________________________________________________
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/