Hey everyone! I’m familiar with palatalization of /ti/ and /di/ in Brazilian Portuguese, but I didn’t think it happened to /tu/ and /du/. Why do they do they palatalize the /t/ in English /tu/?
I remember learning that tonogenesis in East Asia arose from deleting final consonants and that West African tonogenesis arose differently. How did it arise?
Hey everybody! I’ve been studying Spanish for about a year and have some questions about the phonology. For context, I’m a linguistics student who’s studied phonology.
In broad transcription, “agua” is /ˈaɡwa/, and “nahua” is /ˈnawa/. Narrowly transcribed, “agua” becomes [ˈaɣ̞˕wa], and “nahua” /ˈnawa/ is [ˈnawa]. My understanding is that [ɣ̞˕] plus lip rounding is the same as [w]. Does the lip rounding of the /w/ in “agua” ever cause the /g/ to change such that it becomes [ˈawːa] or even [awa]? I want to say I’ve heard that, but I’m not a native speaker. I also know Spanish stop phonology can be complicated and variable. If it were [ˈawa], I’d expect it to rhyme with a word like “nahua” since I figure that it would represent a merger of /VgwV/ and /VwV/.
Related question, is the /g/ “Uruguay” ever pronounced [w] given the /g/ is surrounded by rounded vowels instead of just followed by a rounded consonant?
Hi guys,
I know it obviously wouldn’t be super accurate given the overlap isn’t 100% and sound changes aren’t completely regular or transparent, but I was wondering what you’d guess. FYI, this is ignoring things like molestar’s meaning changing. I mean just cognate to cognate, regardless of semantic drift.