Re: TECH: Sound Change program

Paul Bennett wrote:
> Well, the language has pattern matching using fairly traditional []
> notation, so I could do
>
> p > b / [aeiou]_[aeiou]
>
> with very few problems, if any.
>
> The problem with named variables, and features for that matter, is that
> they (may) change from one stage of the language to the next. I'd need
> another file with (e.g.)
>
> 1066:
>
> V=aeiou
>
> 1300:
>
> V=aeiouy
I don't know if this is relevant, but you might want to distinguish in some
way "phonemic" vs. "phonetic" change. You might indeed have a rule: i > y
/__(C)u  e.g. *bidu > bydu -- but the change is _phonemic_ only if, somehow,
from somewhere, the language produces other instances of /y/ in non-u envs.,
say **byda. Only then is the underlying representation (morpheme structure
rules) changed. (This is how _v_ became phonemic in Engl.)
>
> Also, I'd need some kind of escape mechanism to distinguish named
> variables from text, since it's plausible that the user would want to use
> some horrible language like Klingon (or indeed CXS), where upper and lower
> case can mix within plain text.
Grrr. Tell them to write Klingon in lower case, dammit; it's perfectly
simple to do. >
> I've thought about using $ before variables, to keep in step with several
> programming and scripting languages, but $ is used in environments for
> "morpheme boundary", and it would be a shame to have to use $$ there.
>
> Features, similarwise. if I used [aeiou] notation for variables, I'd need
> some other mechanism for marking features, and a file that looks something
> like
>
> 1066:
>
> t=[+stop][+alveolar][-voice]
>
> Okay, I'm thinking on my feet here...
>
> Make the sound-change file reader multi-pass.
>
> First pass, gobble up all the [features] and re-mark with some other
> character, like `feature' or something. Second pass, take all the
> (variables) and rewrite them in [regex notation].
Not sure I know what you're saying here, tech-wise, but it sounds like this
is where the underlying form/MS rules have changed.

(In my diss. I used ordered "generative phonology" rules to get from
Proto-Austronesian (ca. 7000 BP) > Proto Sulawesi (ca. 2000 BP)--sound
changes resulting in changed underlying phonemic inventory and MS rules,
then from that state onward to the 7 modern lgs. Not a dissimilar process;
it gave me a lot of headaches but taught me the importance of ordering and
precision. And I still find mistakes 30 yrs. later :-((( )

Another interesting concept is "persistent rules"-- Rule A operates for a
given length of time, then stops; but begins to operate again in a later
stage of the lang.--recusiveness of a sort. Wallace Chafe was the first to
point this out formally, in a paper in "Language" back in the early 70s
IIRC. (This may be more than you want to know)