08-04-2019, 07:14 PM
(08-04-2019, 06:57 PM)MarcoP wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Hi Emma,
the way in which e,a,o,y differ from the other glyphs appears to be the clearest "phonological" fact. I agree that it is reassuring that several different methods arrive at the same result in this case.
Part of the problem with 'i' was an error in my EVA mapping: CUVA G corresponds to EVA:g (not EVA:il, I got confused with Currier's transcription which appears in the same table as CUVA on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). I apologize. I have now updated the graph.
It is still bizarre to see 'q' clustered with 'in', but at least all 'i's are still together at level 3.
Ah, I see! But, as you say, it's interesting that not only [q] but also [ch, sh], all of which tend toward the front of a word, cluster with [i] sequences which come at the end. Is the principle marking them as being in complementary distribution?