Re: OT: t > h (was: What makes a good conlang? (was Re: Super OT: Re: CHAT : JRRT)
|From:||Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>|
|Date:||Saturday, March 13, 2004, 6:37|
On Friday, March 12, 2004, at 05:26 PM, And Rosta wrote:
> David Peterson:
>> Trebor wrote:
>> <<As an aside, which is more reasonable (or are they all possible)?
>> t -> l
>> t -> h
>> t -> ?>>
>> Simple answer: /t/ > [?]. However, for this to be a unilateral change
>> would be very strange. This is a sound change of English, though.
>> Anyway, /t/ going directly to [h] is totally unrealistic. I can't see
When you've met as many natlangs as I have in my time, you will realize
that it is very rash to say that some is "totally unrealistc".
> People are probably sick of my pointing out that this or that bit
> of linguistic exotica or impossibilia occurs in one dialect or
> another of English... But here goes anyway:[snip]
Nor do you just have to make do with a Brit English dialect for an example
either. The change from [t] to [h] did happen in Gaelic. In Scots Gaelic
it's spelled |th| and also in Irish when written in standard modern Roman
letters; but in the Irish alphabet it's just |t| wih a dot on it.
It's true not all instances of /t/ went this way, but those subject to
'soft mutation' did. The steps are:
[t] --> [t_h] --> [T] --> [h]
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language." J.G. Hamann, 1760