Skip to content
Universal 919: /©/ ⇒ /x/
- Original
- Standardized
- IF there is the voiced velar fricative phoneme /©/, THEN there will be the voiceless velar fricative phoneme /x/.
- Keywords
- velar, fricative, voice
- Domain
- phonology
- Type
- implication
- Status
- achronic
- Quality
- statistical
- Basis
- languages in Gamkrelidze 1975 [1978] of worldwide distribution
- Source
- Gamkrelidze 1975: 251 [Gamkrelidze 1978: 31]
- Counterexamples
- Languages with velar fricative /©/ that lack its voiceless correlate /x/: Tibetan (Tibeto-Burman), Bambara, Loma (both Mande, Niger-Congo) (Gamkrelidze 1975: 250, fn. 21)
1. In Gamkrelidze’s definition of a paradigmatic stop, positions are limited to bilabial, dental/alveolar, and velar. Palatal and uvular are excluded. Only stop systems with voicing contrast are considered in his analysis. In his terms of which segments can be considered legitimate members of the paradigm for stops, aspirated, glottalized and plain are allowed to fill the respective positions. Only phonemes are considered. The paradigm for fricatives includes only labial and velar positions, alveolar, palatal, interdental, and uvular are excluded.2. There is a statistical correlation in the velar series, whereby the relative frequency of the voiceless fricative /x/, exceeds that of the corresponding voiced fricative /©/ . (Gamkrelidze 1975: 251)3. Cf. Terentjev’s statement in #1679. 4. Cf. Nartey’s less restrictive claim (#799): If there is a voiced obstruent, then most likely its voiceless cognate is present as well.