From: mkelkar2003
Message: 42694
Date: 2006-01-01
>might lie
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "mkelkar2003" <smykelkar@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 3:56 PM
> Subject: [tied] Must sound change be linguistically motivated?
>
>
> > Thanks to P. Manansala for the Abstract.
> >
> > M. Kelkar
> >
> >
> > Must sound change be linguistically motivated?
> >
> > Author: Blust, Robert A.1
> >
> > Source: Diachronica, Volume 22, Number 2, 2005, pp. 219-269(51)
> >
> > Publisher: John Benjamins Publishing Company
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > A number of well-documented sound changes in Austronesian languages do
> > not appear to be either phonetically or phonologically motivated.
> > Although it is possible that some of these changes involved
> > intermediate steps for which we have no direct documentation, the
> > assumption that this was always the case appears arbitrary, and is in
> > violation of Occam's Razor. These data thus raise the question whether
> > sound change must be phonetically motivated, as assumed by the
> > Neogrammarians, or even linguistically motivated, as assumed by
> > virtually all working historical linguists.
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> In the past, I innocently suggested that a part of the explanation
> in actual physical changes in the architecture of the mouth, and wasaccused
> of 'racism', which is an easy out for a difficult question.Would climate have something to do with it? Colder climates may
>
> ***
>