Re: THEORY: derivation question

Nik Taylor wrote:

> 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.
Generally speaking, yes. There are languages and language families where
the tendency is the exact opposite, like in some of the Papua New Guinean
languages I had to study for my historical linguistics class.  Motu (dominant
on the Southern shore), I think it was, has a rule that changed all original
*s to /t/.

=======================================================
Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
ICQ#: 4315704   AIM: Deuterotom
Website: <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."

There's nothing particularly wrong with the
proletariat. It's the hamburgers of the
proletariat that I have a problem with. - Alfred Wallace
========================================================