Re: THEORY: derivation question

Tom Wier wrote:
> * (Incidentally, there was no particular reason why the protolanguage had
> to be reconstructed with an original *p;  it could have had an *f, but then
> you would have to say all the other languages changed with the very same
> rule, from *f to *p, rather than just Germanic changing from *p to *f, and
> it's much easier to say one family made the change than all of them
> did.  There could have been this other change, but it'smuch less likely.)
Not to mention that /f/ --> /p/ is a much less probable change than /p/
--> /f/.  Sounds frequently become less obstructed, that is stops tend
to become affricates (stop+fricative series, like /tS/, English ch),
affricates to fricatives, fricatives to approximates (frictionless
sounds like /w/).  There are counterexamples, but overall, if two
languages are related, and one has /p/, and the other /f/, */p/ is the
more probable ancestor.

--
"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