Re: partial letter replacement in languages?
From: | Tristan Mc Leay <conlang@...> |
Date: | Friday, December 10, 2004, 11:34 |
On 10 Dec 2004, at 6.08 pm, Ray Brown wrote:
> On Thursday, December 9, 2004, at 09:25 , 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,
>
> Nor I - I do not think there is. Sound changes follow regular
> patterns, so
> the most appropriate tem is "exception".
>
>> 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, but that is not what I understand Rodlox to mean. Where, to use
> his
> example, /d/ generally becomes /t/, but there are a few cases where the
> original sound is kept, there will IMO be only two reasons:
> - in certain environments the change is not made. For example in French
> -tion is normally pronounced /sjO`/, but after a preceding /s/, the
> /t/ is
> not changed to /s/, so _question_ /kEstjO`/.
> - a word is taken into the standard language from a dialect where the
> change did not happen.
I think your assumption isn't quite right. There's all the SBrE-based
dialects (like mine & RP) that have things like pass vs mass, or the
standard English worn vs worm, sworn vs sword and selected dialects
(like mine & at least some American) that usually modify /&/ before
voiced elements, but don't in ablauted forms of verbs like ran and
swam. Also most Melburnians at least pronounce 'gone' with a vowel not
found in any other word, which perhaps represents an exception of the
rising of the or/aw-vowel.
These all make sense in terms of Roger's statement that sound changes
proceed word-by-word.
--
Tristan.
Reply