[tied] Re: The role of analogy, alliteration and sandhi in counting

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:

> Richard Wordingham wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com,
> > "alex" <alxmoeller@...> wrote:
> >> The phonetic change of "kW" to
> > "p" cann be
> >> just one way I think:
> >>
> >> -the lost of velar and
> > consonating of the frontal "w" to a
> > clean labial,
> >> thus kW > W > b/p
> > An intermediate stage [w] (or [W])
> > is quite unlikely. From Latin the
> > route may be [kw] (cluster) > [kW]
> >> [p], but an intermediate step may
> > be unnecessary.
> > Richard.
>
>
> Richard, I try to let the theory on a side and the practic aspect

on another

> side. If theoreticaly any change can be made since there won't be

any

> problem to _write_ "s" > "a" the paractic aspect should be the one

who say

> something about the possiblity of a such change and the

explanation should

> be searchd in real life not on the paper.
>
> The lost of the velar "k" or "g" should simplify the things. Why?

Because we

> do know of the easines of W > v or w > U or w > b (in face b,p and

further

> f, v beeing alophones of the same phonem; that is: b, p, f, v are

all

> variants of consonantic "w" at different levels). This way we can

have

> practicaly the change. Mentaining the velars there is no way to

change of

> "k" or "g" to p" simply it does not work, the difference is too

big for

> making it practicaly.
> Thus, there remains these two ways:
> -analogicaly due "sprachgefühl" as Torsten mentioned, with living

example as

> in Rom. "piatrã/kiatrã" (stone), antic Ulpiana/Ulkiana,

Lykos/Lupos ( for

> that see again Rom. lukii/lupii "the wolves"
> -lost of velar and from that point the things are easy how I

supposed

> before.
>
> Practicaly it seems to me the easiest way to get it. That doesn't

mean the

> easiest way is always the true way:-)
> What would say Oçam here?

Entites are not to be multiplied without reason?

If we considered the simpler case of kW > p, notice that both the
start and endpoint are voiceless stops. [W] is not a stop; [w] is
voiced to boot. One could imagine a more gradual shift from [k_w]
to [k_p_w] (labialised true labiovelar - i.e. co-articulated and
still with lip rounding) to [k_p] (plain true labiovelar) to p.
However, if the primary mechanism is children not learning the
language properly, one does not need all these intermediate steps.

I am not unbaised enough to believe that [kw] and [p] sound similar -
I must take that on trust. If true, then even their merger could
occur in one fell swoop.

A problem with kW > W > p, assuming you meant the voiceless labio-
velar approximant, is that the only relevant developments from it I
can think of are [W] > [w], [W] > [f] and [W] > [p\] (bilabial
fricative). If you mean kW > w > p, well, w > p in one step is
unusual, and would be inconsistent with gW > w > b !

Richard.