Re: Math/Phonological formulae

Eric Christopherson wrote:

> I thought I understood the notation used by sound change rules, but
> there are a few areas I don't understand in this discussion.
I'll try to answer these questions, and I assume David will too....
>
> On Feb 6, 2007, at 2:15 PM, David J. Peterson wrote:
>
> > Roger wrote:
> > <<
> > Plan X is to continue writing things all on one line (OK for feature
> > matrices e.g. [+XX +YY -ZZ], clear enough). Curly braces could if
> > necessary
> > be done like this:
> >
> > X --> Y / {1.abc, 2.def 3.mno} or this possibility--
>
> What do braces mean? What is 1.abc, etc.?
In my ex. I simply used "abc, def" as hypothetical distinct environments.

Curly braces are used to indicate a variety of usually unrelated
environments. Suppose vd.stops > fricatives in 1.intervocalic and 2.after
nasals. There's no (simple) way to combime those into a single env., so--

bdg > BDG {1.V_V 2.[nasal]_}

That's one of the reasons why McCawley considered the use of { } spurious--
you are probably combining two separate rules into one, making a
generalization that probably isn't correct.
> >
> > For my own personal purposes, I've always found one line to
> > be sufficient--especially if you condense stuff.  As long as you
> > know what your features are, and can define them in terms of
> > widely accepted features, you can do whatever you want.  So,
> > for example, say you had a rule like this:
> >
> > C[+cons, -cont, +voice, +lateral] > [+cont, -voice] / #_
> >
> > This'd be a rule that changes an /l/ to a [K] at the beginning of
> > a word.
>
> Isn't /l/ also a continuant ([+cont])?
Yes. David get a D on that assignment :-)
>
> >   First, you can knock out the [-cont, +voice] from the
> > first set (standard C&H),
>
> What's C&H?
Chomsky and Halley (Sound Pattern of English, where they invent several rule
formatting conventions that are controversial, to put it mildly)
>
> > and if there are no other laterals, you
> > can knock out the [+cons].  Additionally, though, you could simply
> > write /l/ > [K] / #_.
Actually, assuming the language has only 1 lateral /l/, you could write:
[+voice] --> [-voice] / [+lateral ___]  +lateral implies that all its other
defining features are present and needn't be repeated.
>
> Does [+-cons] mean consonantal?
Yes

(If so, I don't see how it would
> disambiguate different laterals.)
It might be necessary in a language with lateral affricates, but you need
another distinguishing feature (+- obstruent is common)-- because a
lat.affric would have to be [+Cons +obs +lat] because it functions as a stop
whereas plain [l] (along with nasals and r) are usually classed as
[+Cons -obst].  I hope that's clear...

The main point of the 3 major features-- Cons, Obst, and Syl(labic) or
Voc(alic)-- is that you can describe whole groups with just those three, if
necessary.
[+Cons +obs]= stops and s; [+Cons -obs] = nasals,l,r (note +Cons is -Syl/Voc
by definition); then [-Cons -syl] = "semivowels and things like ?,h" while
[-Cons +syl] = all vowels (-Cons is -obst by def.)

> >
> > That, of course, only affects one segment.  If you have a class
> > of segments, though, you can group them together and give
> > them a symbol.  So languages of mine where all the stops are
> > the same, I use S.  So, for example:
> >
> > S[+voice] > F / V_V
That would be a Petersonian shortcut for [+cons +obs -cont -voi]
> >
> > This says that voiced stops become fricatives in between vowels.
> >
> > There are various types of consonants at each place of articulation,
> > but they all react the same way to "palatalizing vowels".  Labial
> > consonants do nothing, so do the back consonants.  Both alveolar
> > *and* velar consonants become palatal before a palatalizing vowel.
> > To write that rule, I could do something like this:
> >
> > C[+COR, +ant/+DOR] > [(+COR) -ant] /_V[-back, +ATR]
>
> a. Why are some of these features in caps and some not?
maybe to emphasize them? otherwise, mistyping :-
)
> b. Is [+-COR] coronal, [+-ant] anterior, and [+-DOR] dorsal?
Yes

> c. Does / mean "or"?
No; it means "in the environment of..."

> d. What do the parentheses mean?
Presence of that segment is optional. For ex. if vowels reduce to [@] in 1.a
final open syllable or 2. a final closed syllable, that can be abbreviated
to:

V --> [@] / __(C)#

or say, V(:) would refer to long or short V
>
> >
> > To be maximally clear, I'd have to write two rules, but it'd miss
> > the generalization that the distinction between velar, alveolar
> > and palatal consonants is lost before a palatalizing vowel.  Thus,
> > the rule can be simplified as follows:
> >
> > X > P / _PV
There's another way to deal with palatalization of td/kg at least before
High front /i/-- it so happens that tdkg are also specified [+high], so it's
a form of assimilation. (Not all phonologists use "high" ahem....but other
features are available).
> >
> > Where X is a consonant that's either alveolar or velar, P is a
> > palatal consonant, and PV is a palatalizing vowel.
>
> I suppose you could even say "X is a consonant that's alveolar,
> palatal, or velar", which to me seems to better capture the "spirit"
> of the change (by avoiding an unnatural separation between alveolar
> and velar), but that would mean that it would posit a "change" where
> the output equals the input in some cases.
That can happen; in that case, we say "the rule applies vacuously to XXXX"/
For ex. in Gwr, a whole bunch of V(wy)V sequences become diphthongs, which,
if there's a final C, simply remain as diphthong+C. However, all sequences
of V or derived diphthongs + final -r reduce to a retroflex vowel /r/ [3`]
as in AmE. "her", thus **-awt ends up as /-awt/ but awr > /-3`/. There's
really no need to go through the diphthongization process if there's a final
r, but it's simpler to let it happen (vacuously) than to write the rule in
such a way as to eliminate final r from the environment.

I don't know how much in fashion old-style Generative Phonology is, anymore;
but C&H "SPE" has a long section on rule-writing conventions, plus a very
handy guide is Robert T. Harris "Introduction to Phonological Theory" (pb.,
Prentice Hall 1968), which serves me well as a guide.
>

Replies