Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: partial letter replacement in languages?

From:Roger Mills <rfmilly@...>
Date:Friday, December 10, 2004, 0:44
Philip Newton wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 02:48:04 +0200, Rodlox <Rodlox@...> wrote: > > > > is there a term for when a language is evolving/being changed, & > > replaces > > one letter with another (ie, /d/ becomes /t/) in nearly all > > instances...yet > > there are still words in the resultant language which retain (to > > continue > > the example) /d/ ? > > I don't know a term for it, but just wanted to note that some > instances of this come when there are two (nearly) concurrent sound > changes such that, say, /d/ becomes /t/ while, say, /D/ becomes /d/ -- > so all or most original /d/'s disappeared but there are still /d/'s in > the resulting language that used to be a different sound.
Yes; that sort of thing is explicable, and depends on rule ordering, which presumably reflects sequence in time. Compare: 1. d > t 2. D > d vs. 1. D > d 2. d > t Otherwise, the situation Rodlox describes is truly the despair of the Historical Linguist. If "ALL" d > t, then any observed d's must be 1. irregular ~failed sound change (but why?) 2. later borrowings 3. "dialect mixing" and/or "substrate influence", which in the absence of any real evidence are simply fancy, less honest, ways of saying "inexplicable"." Sometimes analogy (paradigmatic pressure) is the culprit-- e.g. in Buginese, *d fairly regularly > r, but there was also /r/ < *r. Verbal forms had C-final prefixes (modern ma?-, maN-) so you get alternations like: (original *d) base /r..../, prefixed /ma?-d.... ~man-d..../ VS (original *r) base /r..../ pfx. /marr... ~manr..../ Then for some perverse reason speakers decide that some random forms with -Cd- must have a base with /d.../ --or vice versa, some forms with base /r.../ < *d have prefixed forms as if they were original *r. The old Neogrammarian dictum "sound change proceeds without exception" has so many exceptions as to be little more than a suggestion. More recent theories hold that "sound change proceeds word by word"; consequently some very frequent (or perhaps very infrequent) words become exempt. This seems to explain such things as (assuming that same spelling = same sound) Shakesperean (or earlier?) "great, meat" no longer rhyme (I could be wrong on details here, but not on principle IIRC)
> Watch the Reply-To!
Ooh, caught it just in time............