Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 20:45:50 +0100 (CET)
From: PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de>
To: Lojban list <lojban@onelist.com>
In-Reply-To: <3663FBBF.EE894E5E@bcc.bilkent.edu.tr>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.981201203758.9498B-100000@wtao97.oas>
Mailing-List: list lojban@onelist.com; contact lojban-owner@onelist.com
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Subject: [lojban] Re: X-files
Content-Length: 1623
Lines: 40


From: PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de>

> > For a conlang, one of these two distributions would have to be chosen.
> > I'd prefer to avoid the choice and use only a non-palatalized /x/.
> >
> 
> I would have thought that we could just as easily leave it up to the speaker.  I
> palatalise all the time, simply because I prefer the sound.

in all languages I know of that have the allophony between palatal and
non-palatal velars, non-palatization is the default variant and
palatalization is brought about only by the proximity of /i/ or other
front vowels.  Usually (in Greek, slavic languages, Chinese, Japanese) it
is the subsequent vowel that brings about this change.  It would thus be
fair to see the palatized /x/ as a composite sound, consisting of the
non-palatized plus an /i/ feature.  you could also call it a sandhi form, 
an interim stage in the disintegration of phonemic systems that often
occurs in language history.

leaving things up to the speaker can easily mean leaving them to the
prisoner's dilemma or some other ineluctable mechanism.  At least a
mechanism that will never produce a logical language. 

co'o mi'e pilxartmut

-- 
Hartmut Pilch
http://www.a2e.de/phm/


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or
service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit
http://www.onelist.com/advert.html for more information.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com