From: tgpedersen
Message: 30262
Date: 2004-01-29
>they
>
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, tgpedersen wrote:
> >
> > I don't know why I get this feeling that you are being sarcastic.
>
> I was.
>
> > Let
> > me try to be more precise. Palatals can be depalatalised only if
> > occur in alternating paradigms somewhere in the language, in whichwithout
> > case they _might_ spread to non-alternating environments. But
> > the alternation depalatalisation won't get started in the firstplace.
>change
> Now that makes the theory a bit easy, doesn't it? Any conditioned
> is liable to produce alternation, so how do you get a contrastingcase
> without alternation (*anywhere* in the language, as I nowunderstand it
> means) showing that lack of alternation blocks all atttempts atWhew, I was afraid you might have come up with a counter-example.
> depalatalisation?
> Actually, I can easily imagine how speakers can change theirpronunciation
> under the influence of that of others. I believe this is a morepotent
> factor governing the course of language change than any amount of1) What is it I said that makes you believe that I disregard the
> paradigmatic alternation.
> In the case of Danish it was certainly not levelling that causedto be
> depalatalisation. The correspondence of German <gelten, galt> used
> <gjælde, galdt>; that developed into <gjælde, gjaldt> by levelling,then
> to present-day <gælde gjaldt> with depalatalisation *against* theuniform
> picture caused by the earlier levelling.That's right. There was an attempt at levelling which comprised a
>