Re: Umlaut

Pavel Iosad slabronten:
> Thomas Wier wrote:
> > This is a good start, but umlauting is usually taken to mean that
> > an /i/ in one part of the word causes not diphthongization, but
> > an actual change in some phonological feature of a neighboring
> > vowel.
>
> Um, in Germanic languages possibly yes. This is not the case with
> Bryttonic _i_-affection, which does turn, say, _a_ into _ei_ in Middle
> Welsh, so _bardd_, pl. _beird(d)_.
Okay.  Here's what Hans Hock, who, as I'm sure you know,
is something of an authority in historical linguistics,
has to say on umlauting:

  "Umlaut involves the assimilation of a class of vowels to a
  set of [+vocalic] segments in an immediately neighboring
  syllable.  It therefore has a fairly general effect on the
  vowel system.  Moreover, umlaut leads to phonological split
  and frequently introduces new phonemes.  (Vowel assimilations
  not meeting this definition sometimes are also referred to
  as umlaut.  But here, as elsewhere, it seems preferable
  to reserve a special term for the designation of a special
  phenomenon.)" (_Principles of Historical Linguistics_, p. 66)

He then goes on to mention fronting, backing, raising and
lowering types of umlauts, and in none of his examples does
diphthongization without phonological split occur as in your
example.  As I read Hock, he would probably not consider your
example umlauting since it does not lead to phonological splits
or new phonemes. (It's certainly similar, though.)

> > (The rules you posit above of course are also possible, but then
> > one does not usually call them umlaut.)
>
> Call them _i_-affection then.
Whatever. :)

 =========================================================================
Thomas Wier
Dept. of Linguistics  "Nihil magis praestandum est quam ne pecorum ritu
University of Chicago sequamur antecedentium gregem, pergentes non qua
1010 E. 59th Street   eundum est, sed qua itur." -- Seneca
Chicago, IL 60637

Reply