29-01-04 20:00, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
> " but an innovation like the one we're discussing is likely to take
> decades rather than centuries. "
>
> Sorry again, but I find above just another afirmation with no
> arguments after it. Is there an issue to put the arguments after any
> afirmation like this?
Any reorganisation of a phonological system has to happen quickly once
it has begun to spread, and there is a very good reason for that: what a
speech community needs is relative stasis rather than a state of flux
going on for centuries. If an innovation disturbs the equilibrium, new
speakers will instinctively opt for any adjustments that are conducive
to the reemergence of "law and order" (a new state of equilibrium). It
isn't intellectual speculation but a conclusion drawn from empirical
evidence. There are many historical examples of datable sound changes
and, even more importantly, present-day examples of change in progress
which show that phonological change is far more rapid than most people
would imagine. If you want reference to studies of ongoing sound change,
I recommend William Labov's _Principles of Linguistic Change_ (in two
volumes) as introductory reading.
We don't know if the change *s/*z > *s^/*z^ spread to all the corners of
the Old Albanian dialect network. All we know is that it affected the
dialects ancestral to Modern Albanian.
Piotr