From: Andrew Jarrette
Message: 41211
Date: 2005-10-10
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
wrote:......
> david_russell_watson <liberty@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Jarrette <anjarrette@...>
> wrote:
>..................
> But I am recounting all aspects of English that make it
nonconforming among Indo-European languages. For example, all Indo-
European languages but English have an "i" that is pronounced like
our "ee", and "a" is never pronounced /ey/, always "ah" or very
similar (e.g. with "long" or "short" subvarieties which are not too
divergent from the "ah" sound), among all other Indo-European
languages. Also for example, most Indo-European languages changed
initial /w/ to /v/. One changed it to /b/, one to /gw/, and in one it
disappeared. But all other Indo-European languages changed the
sound /w/ in initial position. In this way, English is atypical.
Perhaps I am using the wrong word, but I think I am not
using "atypical" incorrectly here.
[NS]
As has already been pointed out, here you are talking about the
English spelling system, not the English language. I think if you had
posed it as the "English spelling system is atypical" rather
than "English is atypical" you might find greater acceptance-- I always thought spelling was a feature of the written language, and I always thought written language was a recognized form of a language, used to communicate as much as speech is used to communicate. If you will grant me that spelling is a part of language, then you will find that in all Indo-European languages using the Roman Alphabet, the primary sound of "i" is the sound denoted in English by "ee". Only in English is it the diphthong /ay/ - and here you must grant me that I am using the "long" variety of "i" in those languages which distinguish short and long, which is the variety of "i" after which the letter is named in those languages. The "short" variety is either a slightly lowered or a slightly shorter version of this "ee" in all these languages, except again in English where the short "i" cannot be described as a lowered or shortened version of English "long i".
>> ... and English is also atypical among
> > Indo-European languages in preserving /w/ in initial
> > position.
>
> If the inclusion of initial /w/ in the sound system of
> the language in its earlier stages wasn't odd, then why
> is its accidental retention atypical of a later stage?
>
>
> Because no other Indo-European language retained this sound in this
position (its commonest position).
[NS]
Yes, but considering the number of initial sounds in PIE and the
amount of change languages have gone through would it really be
remarkable that just by chance one descendant alone retained a
certain sound while all others lost it? It is not as if there were
anything special about /w/ which caused you to investigate to see who
had retained it, and you then discovered to your surprise that
English alone did. Rather you've picked the example of /w/ precisely
because you already knew it was retained by English alone. I'm
inclined to agree with David that this is just an accidental feature
which goes toward making English a different language than its
sisters.
Regards,
Ned Smith-- Yes, but all other Indo-European languages have in common that they do not preserve /w/ in initial position. Thus, typically, initial /w/ is not preserved in Indo-European languages. English is atypical (and also different) in that it preserves this sound. I think we are really quibbling about choice of diction rather than different ideas. Yes, initial /w/ is just one small aspect of a huge number of parameters that constitute a language, but I was trying to make a point that not only does English preserve initial /w/ unlike all other IE languages, but also it has the least consistent spelling system, it has a high proportion of inexplicably divergent developments of the identical sound in different words (I would bet that it has the highest proportion of these), it is the only one with approximant "r" (alveolar or retroflex or "bunched"), and it is also the most widely spoken second language in the world. Maybe I'm making a big deal out of nothing, but I find that English has a lot of unique qualities. So perhaps "unique" is a better word than "atypical" -- but I think you will just say that every language is unique in its own way, to which I would counter that "trilled" apical /r/ is common to many languages, IE and other, that most IE languages have very regular sound laws with few or no unconditioned exceptions, unlike the many exceptional English vowel developments I have mentioned before, many IE languages are not widely spoken outside their native countries, and many IE languages have near phonetic spelling systems. So if you say that every language is unique in its own way, I would temper that with the observation that many languages share common properties like the ones I have just mentioned, while English has a high proportion of unique traits that are not shared by other languages, especially other IE languages.
Andrew