From: Richard Wordingham
Message: 513
Date: 2003-08-09
>liquids.
>
> Richard Wordingham wrote:
>
> > ---
> > > >
> > > > As another example, 72% of languages have at least 2
> > Thatthe
> > > > has not stopped many Tai dialects from collapsing [l] and [r]
> > > > together, or losing one without replacement (via [r] > [h]).
> > >
> > >
> > > Are these inferred or attested? I do not believe that most of
> > dataThey
> > > that passes off
> > > as being 'true" is really true. They are all inferred.
> >
> > For the Bangkok merger of /l/ and /r/, I would say attested.
> > are distinguished in the native script, and correspond to thea
> > Indic /l/ and /r/ in loanwords. Thai writing (and, to a large
> > extent, spelling,) is 700 years old. The merger is described as
> > _Bangkok_ phenomenon, but I cannot bear witness to their beingThailand.
> > consistently distinguished in rural dialects of Central
> > The distinction does not appear to be artificial, for cognatesthey
> > across the Tai-speaking area bear out the same contrast.
>
>
> Did these /l/ and /r/ come with Indic loanwords?
>
> Did the /l/ and /r/ represent phonemes in the languages or were
> (like KoreanProto-Tai /l/ and /r/ words occur in all four tone classes, whereas
> and/or Japanese ?) merely allophones?
> This could be a natural process e.g. rolled r slowly becominguvular
> etc, like french rkinds of rules
> and then going to something like h. But these are the general
> I am interested in. It still fits into the "nearest-neighbor"shift
> pattern.So does [S] > [s] !