Re: THEORY: on the teleology of conlanging (was: RE: terminaldialect?)

Joshua Shinavier wrote:
> What if the language in question already has an [r] -- will the pre-existence
> of such a sound tend to hinder this change?
I'd imagine so, altho it wouldn't prevent it.

> How about de-voicing of [r]s?
In what environment?  Devoicing isn't normally common except in
word-final position (as with German, for instance), or adjacent to
unvoiced sounds, for example, /sr/ --> /r_0/, if your language has /sr/
clusters.

> Yes, I imagine that if there *is* a way to predict such changes, the whole of
> the phonology would have to be taken into account, among other things...
I doubt that there's a way to perfectly predict changes, even given
complete isolation (thus eliminating outside influences), but I'm sure
that we could do a lot better than we can know with more knowledge.
That is, we might be able to say that such-and-such change has about a
90% chance of occurring within the next 2 centuries.  But I don't think
that language is something that can be calculated out with any
accuracy.  Humans are free agents, not mindless atoms.  Even if our
behavior COULD be predicted, random factors involve which sperm
fertilizes which egg.  And since individuals (especially powerful or
influential individuals) are the origin of change, those random factors
would mess up your calculations.  Yet, I do think that probabilities
would be possible.  We can already speak of those in general terms, such
as saying that in English, it's unlikely for, say, /s/ and /T/ to merge,
but it is fairly likely that /D/ and /d/ might merge (especially since
it HAS in some dialects)

> ... so if those tastes change than even the most "stable" phonology is doomed.
True.

> Ok, so now the question remains whether a terminal form can be reached for
> a language with a fixed set of such habits...
Hmm, perhaps immortality?  Since most changes occur in youth, immortals
would be unlikely to change much, especially with no children.  Long
life would probably also tend to retard language change.  That's
incorporated into the Native languages.  The Natives are very
long-lived, averaging 184 years in the now-misnamed Human Republic
(where they have good medical care), therefore, their cultures and
languages tend to be more conservative than our own.  After all, they
have people whose worldviews were shaped over a century ago, and elders
tend to have great respect.  Also, since their reproductive systems
don't degenerate like ours do, they can have children in their old age,
and, since children tend to adopt their parents' dialects, "old
fashioned" language can be readily brought into young speech.

--
"It's bad manners to talk about ropes in the house of a man whose father
was hanged." - Irish proverb
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/X-Files
http://members.tripod.com/~Nik_Taylor/Books.html
ICQ: 18656696
AIM Screen-name: NikTailor