Re: Tibetan and tones

[Miguel Carrasquer Vidal <mcv@xxxxxx>]

Jacques Guy <jguy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Three, granting the tones-out-of-consonants theory, how
>come Mandarin has fewer tones than Cantonese, and also
>has retained *fewer* consonants? How come Shanghaiese,
>which has lost the most consonants, has only three 
>tones? How come Shanghai students once developed a slang with
>NO tones? (If I remember correctly, that was in the 1930's)

Indeed.  The development of tones seems to have more to do with
the loss of vowels (or rather, syllables) than with the loss of
consonants, and even that's not a requirement.  However,
consonants (whether or not lost) do play a role in the shape that
the tones take.  If I remember correctly, unvoiced/aspirated
tends to be associated with falling tone, and voiced/glottalized
with rising tone (or was it the other way around?).

=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@xxxxxx