LINGUIST List 20.3197
|
Tue Sep 22 2009
Qs: Frequency of Stop Dissimilation and Assimilation
Editor for this issue: Elyssa Winzeler
<elyssa linguistlist.org>
|
We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was
instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.
In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have taken the trouble to respond to the query.
To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
|
Directory
1. Rémy
Viredaz,
Frequency of Stop Dissimilation and Assimilation
Message 1: Frequency of Stop Dissimilation and Assimilation
|
Date: 18-Sep-2009
From: Rémy Viredaz <remy.viredaz bluewin.ch>
Subject: Frequency of Stop Dissimilation and Assimilation
E-mail this message to a friend
Dear Linguists, Have studies been made on the relative frequency of assimilation and dissimilation between stops, in languages of the world, depending on the phonetic nature of their contrast: aspiration, glottalization, pharyngealization etc.? That is, could we say, for instance, that aspirates are more prone to dissimilation while glottalized stops are more prone to assimilation? I am interested in resources on distant assimilation/dissimilation as well as assimilation/dissimilation in contact; to regressive as well as progressive assimilation/dissimilation. Please do not mention Grassmann's law and Bartholomae's law which I already know about. Thank you for your replies, Rémy
Linguistic Field(s):
Phonology
Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
|
|

Please report any bad links or misclassified data
LINGUIST Homepage | Read
LINGUIST | Contact us

While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.
|
|