Re: Which is simpler: /y/ or /iw/?
|From:||Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, June 4, 2008, 12:04|
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:
Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
> 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 
> (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] :)
>> 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).
> Frustra fit per plura quod potest
> fieri per pauciora.
> [William of Ockham]