Re: Reversible sound change applier

On Thu, 11 May 2006 14:45:46 +0200, Benct Philip Jonsson <bpj@...> wrote:

>Alex Fink skrev:
>> On Wed, 10 May 2006 17:29:19 -0500, Nik Taylor <yonjuuni@...>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>How does that work with mergers?  E.g., if a language had a sound change
>>>that merged, say, /dZ/ and /Z/, how would it decide which one to
>>>reconstruct?  Without looking at related languages/dialects, or possibly
>>>inflectional forms within the language, there's no way of knowing which
>>>one is the case.
>>>=========================================================================
>>
>>
>> It takes the simple-minded way out and returns every possible reconstruction
>> (usually a great many of them are ridiculous, in fact).
>
>Actually that's what I'd want.  I'd certainly *not* want
>for the computer to decide which form to choose as the
>correct one -- certainly not without telling me what the
>forms were that it rejected.  Some things a human just
>do better!
>
>What about the reverse case: dialect splits,
>as when XYZ becomes XAZ in one dialect, XYB in
>another while remaining in a third, but then
>all three undergo X > C / _ Y (which obviously
>doesn't apply in one of the dialect forms?
Well, that would have to wait for the day (if it ever comes) that I include
support for dialects.  But the thing to do, I think, would be to do the
reconstruction independently for every dialect, and then give back all the
forms which could have given rise to every dialect's form.

So in your example, assuming the Y > A and Z > B are unconditional:
dialect 1 supports the reconstructions  XAZ XYZ;
dialect 2    "      "         "         CYB CYZ XYB XYZ;
dialect 3    "      "         "         CYZ XYZ
and the only commonality is XYZ.

Alex

Reply