1. Compare the statement by Jakobson: bh => ph.2. Cf. Nartey’s less restrictive claim (#799): If there is a voiced obstruent, then most likely its voiceless counterpart is present as well. 3. However, crosslinguistic frequency need not perforce translate into an implication.
1. Compare the statement by Jakobson: bh => ph.2. Cf. Nartey’s less restrictive claim (#799): If there is a voiced obstruent, then most likely its voiceless counterpart is present as well. 3. However, crosslinguistic frequency need not perforce translate into an implication.