Re: [bpfk] Question on {z} vs. {dz} and {ts}

[John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>]

And Rosta scripsit:

> Not to mention "adds" and thousands upon thousands of others. But not in
> onsets, of course.

Sure.  I was only looking at monomorphemic cases, which in practice
is most easily accomplished by looking only at written "z".  ("Gadzooks"
is < "God's hooks", but synchronically monomorphemic.)

-- 
John Cowan          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan        cowan@ccil.org
Híggledy-pìggledy / XML programmers
Try to escape those / I-eighteen-N woes;
Incontrovertibly / What we need more of is
Unicode weenies and / François Yergeaus.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.