Re: OT: t > h (was: What makes a good conlang? (was Re: Super OT: Re: CHAT : JRRT)

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
>> it
>> happen.
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]


Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com    (home)
raymond.brown@kingston-college.ac.uk   (work)
===============================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760