> A small bit of pedantry - to answer the question in the subject, /y/
> is "simpler" by definition, and only the direction going from /iw/ to
> /y/ is "simplification"; going the other way is not. Monopththongs
> are definitionally simpler than diphthongs, regardless of which is
> easier to pronounce. But as Ray said, the development could go either
> way or, most likely, both ways back and forth in a cycle...
>
>
>
> On 6/4/08, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
>> Paul Bennett wrote:
>>> I'm having yet another round of re-thinking about Uinlistka phonology.
>>>
>>> Old Norse has /y/, /2/, and /Q/.
>>> A number of Algonquian languages have /iw/, /ew/, and /Aw/.
>>
>> Which series is simpler to pronounce is, I think, dependent upon one's
>> own liguistic background. In languages that normally have [y] and [2]
>> (or similar rounded front vowels), such as French or German, then I
>> guess the Old Norse sounds will seem simpler (more especially so if
>> one's L1 doesn't have [w]).
>>
>> But I was brought up long ago in West Sussex in the UK where English
>> /aw/ is colloquially [Ew]. I lived for 22 years in South Wales where
>> English /ju/ is pronounced [iw]. So personally I find the Algonquian
>> series a good deal easier then the Old Norse /y/ and /2/. (As a Brit, I
>> have no problem with [Q] :)
>>
>> [snip]
>>> Based on that, and knowing that Uinlitska is supposed to have developed
>>> among Old Norse settlers in northeastern North America, which of the
>>> following seems more naturalistic:
>>>
>>> 1: /y/, /2/, /Q/ simplify to /iw/, /ew/, /Aw/
>>>
>>> 2: /iw/, /ew/, /Aw/ simplify to /y/, /2/, /Q/
>>>
>>
>> Seems to me that either is equally naturalistic (which, I guess, doesn't
>> help ;)
>>
>> Languages seem to go through cycles in which simple vowels tend to give
>> way to diphthongs (especially, of course, if stressed), and at other
>> times where diphthongs simplify to single vowels.
>>
>> French is a most notable example. In Old French we find a very rich
>> system of falling diphthongs and, indeed, a few triphthongs which
>> developed from simple vowels of Vulgar Latin. But this whole system has
>> no gone. The transition from Old French to modern French has seem
>> drastic reduction of the old falling diphthongs and triphthongs to
>> simple vowels. A most notable one is the reduction of _eau_ /j&w/ to
>> [o]. (There's one example of the falling [Qj] giving rise to the rising
>> [wa] of modern French - but that is a lone example).
>>
>> Ray
>> ==================================
>>
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
>> ==================================
>> Frustra fit per plura quod potest
>> fieri per pauciora.
>> [William of Ockham]
>>
>
> --
> Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
>
> Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
>