Re: Stacked sound change?

--- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, "David J. Peterson" wrote:
>That sounds very interesting.  Why does /&/ go to [U]
>specifically, though?  How is this stacked sound change
>constrained?  Just whatever seems right based on the
>phones involved?
Well, as I see it, the existing sound change /&/ -> [O] is essentially
velarization, triggered by a preceding [w] or following [5]. (Since the
result is, even in the latter case, [O] and not [V], I guess the /U/ -> [V]
shift had not occured yet at that point of the language's development, and
the rounding is just compensatory.) Cumulative velarization would have to
lead to a higher back vowel. I chose [U] as the end result for two reasons:
1) It's a lax vowel, just like /&/
2) It's phonetically often only half-rounded
tho I don't think either argument would make it completely impossible for
this shift to end up at [u] instead (or even [oU?]).

As for constraints in the general sense... this sort of a shift requires two
non-global sound changes occuring to the same sound. Both need to move the
original sound to the same phonetic direction, be it due to assimilation or
dissimilation (and in case of the former, it must be non-complete
assimilation); then, if *both* conditions are met, the original sound still
shifts to the same phonetic direction, just farther.
This is really an "additivity of force" sort of thing. I view sound change
as some environment "pushing" or "pulling" a sound to a certain direction.
So, if there happens to be more than one "puller" on some axis, the sound
would go farther than if there were only one "puller"?


>John continues:
>If not, how about cumulative results of two different sound changes?
<example snup>

>This isn't actually as out-of-the-ordinary as the first you
>described (if that, indeed, is out of the ordinary).  This kind of
>thing happens all the time.
>Here's an interesting one.  Imagine:
>
>(1) /t/ > [tS] / _[i]
>(2) /ts/ > [tS] / _[i]
>(3) /s/ > [ts] / C[+nasal]_
>
>Now, let's say (1) and (2) happened much earlier on in the language.
>You could have the following situation:
>
>(a) *mati > matSi
>(b) *matsi > matSi
>(c) *masi > masi
>(d) *manti > mantSi
>(e) *mantsi > mantSi
>(f) *mansi > mantsi
>-David
Um, I fail to see how this example has anything to do with what I am talking
about. In case I didn't make it clear enough, I'm talking about multiple
(different or not) sound changes which all shift the *same* sound...

John Vertical