--- In phoNet@yahoogroups.com, "H.M. Hubey" <HubeyH@M...> wrote:

>
>
> Richard Wordingham wrote:
>
> > --- In phoNet@yahoogroups.com, "hubeyh" <HubeyH@M...> wrote:
> >
> > I've used extended SAMPA notation below.
> >

> > > Axiom 1. The changes go from less sonorant to more sonorant.

These

> > can
> > > be seen in Figs 10-18 or so. (There are two Fig 12s. Mistake.)
> >
> > [f] > [v] and [v] > [f] are both known. Word initially, [f] >

[v] is

> > known from Dutch and English West Country dialects.
> >
> > [v] > [f] seems to have occured in the development of Tai

dialects

> > from Proto-Tai; the evidence lies in the tone development, which
> > indicates initial voicing. (The Thai letter is a modified Indic

<b>;

> > the original Indic letter is now pronounced [ph] in Simaese and

Lao,

> > [p] in the Northern dialects, and and has the same association

with

> > the tone as the letter for *v.) It may be relevant that the Tai
> > change is part of a general set of changes whereby voicing

contrasts

> > were lost. For example, <hm> and <m> now both represent [m] in

most

> > Tai dialects.
> >
> > Intervocally, [f] > [v] is unremarkable; word-finally, [v] > [f]

is

> > unremarkable.
>
>
> Ok. What I am referring to is one of the two kinds of change (1)
> physiological, articulatory,
> coarticulation changes (2) changes due to new language learners.
>
> IT may be compared to water flowing downhill naturally, unless

forced

> uphill by other
> forces (e.g. pumps). These two have to kept separate to get a

better

> correlation between
> languages and movement of peoples, and role of substrates.

The role of substrates seem to have been greatly overstated. What's
the substrate that causes the initial voicing above in some, but not
all, South Germanic dialects?

Devoicing as in the Tai languages, where a voicing contrast becomes
a register contrast 'breathy' v. normal, occurs in many SE Asian
languages, be they Daic, Mon-Khmer or even Chinese.

Having said that, there are some changes which can reasonably be
attributed to foreign influence. Additionally, I suppose foreign
influences can stabilise new sounds that otherwise might not last
long.

> > > Axiom 2. The specific mechanism is (to the simplest

approximation)

> > > nearest neighbor shift.

I suppose we'd better call this *Law* 2.

> > >(Personally I would also disallow k>s.)

In one fell swoop, yes. However, k > c > tS > S > s is not
impossible.

Richard.