> --- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:since
> > [Piotr:] I would not see it as a mechanical sweeping process,
> phonetic changes like sk > s^ or k > c^ are unidirectional "byincreasing
> nature", and if the reverse change seems to occurs, it is always
> results from a dialect shift or analogical change. Anyway, the
> codification of standard Danish was the work of 18th/19th-century
> grammarians and anti-German-minded purists, and orthographic
> considerations evidently played a role in it. Replace the spelling
> <Kjøbenhavn> with <København>, and sure as eggs is eggs an
> number of people will soon be settling for a pronunciationconsistent
> with the spelling. (By the way, can you explain cases like this oneto
> through paradigmatic regularisation? How do you know that levelling-
> out was the real driving force, if at the same time you're forced
> assume that a great number of words where regularisation is ruledout
> took a "free ride" or became "infected" with the change? SoundsCircular?
> circular to me).
> > In standard Polish, a pre-war simplification of spelling -- <ge>
> rather than <gie> in foreign words, where the palatalisation of /g/
> was thought to be fully predictable -- soon brought about a
> general "hardening" of the consonant in educated speech, and now
> some elderly people pronounce <generacja> or <geniusz> with /gje/.(see
> This is a pure case of orthographically-conditioned sound change
> also the "re-rhoticisation" of New York English, discussedearlier).