Re: A sound change question...

From: "Thomas R. Wier" <trwier@...>
> Quoting Garth Wallace <gwalla@...>:
>
> > Muke Tever wrote:
> > > From: "Peter Bleackley" <Peter.Bleackley@...>
> > >
> > >>[kw] -> [p]
> > >
> > > If we're throwing in clusters, dont forget [tw] > [s] and [kw] > [t], both
> > > from Greek.
> >
> > Those three seem strange. How are they explained?
>
> The first, [kw]/[k_w] > [p], is not so strange, and is well-attested.
> It occurs simply by fusing some of the features of the two elements/
> segments into one segment:  the feature [-continuant] (i.e., stopness)
> and [-voice] from the [k] and the feature [labial] from the [w].
>
> The other two are more strange, but not unbelievable.  I don't know
> the particular history of the changes he's mentioning, but [tw] > [s]
> might be from two distinct that happened changes in Greek: [w] > null,
> and [t] > [s] / _i.
I believe the intermediate in [tw] > [s] was some manner of [tSw], given how it
actually comes out as -ss- intervocalically (except in some dialects, including
Attic, which have -tt-).

Examples are the second person pronoun, e.g. acc. *twe > se; and *twr=ks > sarx
"flesh".

> I'm not sure about [kw] > [t] -- does Peter have a citation for that?
Well, if the difference between [kw] and [k_w] is not being held, there are:

    *penkwe > pente  "five"
    *kwe    > te     "and" (encl.)
    *kwis   > tis    "who"


    *Muke!
--
http://frath.net/

Reply