Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Which is simpler: /y/ or /iw/?

From:Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
Date:Wednesday, June 4, 2008, 12:14
And veering a tad OT, why is the word "simplification" instead of
*"simplication"?  Seems like we have at least one lazy morpheme
tagging along for the ride and not doing anything useful...

The obvious answer is that it's nominalized from "simplify" rather
than *"simplicate", but that's just begging the question. Why did that
verb get that form?  Duplex, duplicate; triple, triplicate; complex,
complicate; simple(x), simplify.  nuqjay'?

On 6/4/08, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> wrote:
> 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 >> ================================== >> >> ================================== >> Frustra fit per plura quod potest >> fieri per pauciora. >> [William of Ockham] >> > > -- > Sent from Gmail for mobile | > > Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> >
-- Sent from Gmail for mobile | Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>


Herman Miller <hmiller@...>