Re: "Preservative" assimilation?

Eric Christopherson wrote:
> Is there such a thing as "preservative assimilation"? I noticed today
> that a lot of articles on Wikipedia claim so, but IIRC the term is
> "perseverative". I don't know for sure, though, so I'm not fixing it yet.
>
It would appear that 'preservative assimilation' or 'perseveratory
assimilation' 'perservative assimilation' are alternative names for what
I've always known as _progressive assimilation_, i.e. where the first
sound influences the second sound. The assimilation progresses from
'left to right', so to speak. An obvious and common example of this type
of assimilation is the English plural which is either [s] or [z] after a
non-sibilant consonant; whether it is [s] or [z] depends upon the
_preceding_ consonant.

_Progressive assimilation_ may thus also be known as _left-to-right
assimilation_ (on the assumption that the 'normal' way to write is from
left to right) or 'lag assimilation'.

The opposite, as for example Latin _in_ + 'purus' --> 'impurus', was
traditionally (and still is by me) known as 'regressive assimilation.'
Alternative names are 'right-to-left' or 'anticipatory.'

It would seem that some people found it tricky to get their heads around
the terms 'progressive' and 'regressive', understanding them with the
opposite meanings! Hence alternative terminologies have evolved.

The alternative names 'left-to-right' and 'right-to-left' surely have
the same signification as the older traditional terms. If one assumes
writing fro left to right, then left-to-right is surely progressive and
right-to-left is equally surely regressive. Or have I missed something here?

--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]

Reply