Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: A question on palatalization.

From:Dirk Elzinga <dirk_elzinga@...>
Date:Thursday, January 2, 2003, 17:42
At 9:57 AM -0600 1/2/03, Thomas R. Wier wrote:
>Quoting John Cowan <jcowan@...>: > >> > *Which makes me wonder why. Why didn't biscop become */bIZ@p/, even >> > allophonically? I understand long fricatives in Old English weren't >> > voiced, could this have been long then? >> >> I don't think that allophonic voicing of spirants affected /S/; why not, >> I have no idea. > >[S] is a [-anterior] segment according to most systems of feature >geometry. If the soundchange affects only [+continuant] [+anterior] >segments (thus creating [v D z] out of [f T s]), we would expect >exactly such a dichotomy.
If intervocalic voicing in Old English is due to Verner's Law, then it had probably become lexicalized by the time that the cluster <sc> became [S]. In which case, [S] would be immune from the voicing rule. Dirk -- Dirk Elzinga "It is important not to let one's aesthetics interfere with the appreciation of fact." - Stephen Anderson


John Cowan <jcowan@...>