Re: [tied] Must sound change be linguistically motivated?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Wordingham" <richard@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Must sound change be linguistically motivated?


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "mkelkar2003" <smykelkar@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 9:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Must sound change be linguistically motivated?
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
> > > ***
> > > Patrick:
> > >
> > > In the past, I innocently suggested that a part of the explanation
> > might lie
> > > in actual physical changes in the architecture of the mouth, and was
> > accused
> > > of 'racism', which is an easy out for a difficult question.
> > >
> > > ***
> > >
> > Would climate have something to do with it? Colder climates may
> > require more effort to pronunce certain sounds thus compelling their
> > speakers to swith to other "easier" sounds.
> >
> > I have observed that many maestors of North Indian classical music
> > consistently mispronunce rishab as rikhab, perhaps due to a lack of
> > formal education, or perhaps because they habitually talk while
> > chewing a mouthful of betel nut leaves.
> >
> > Could it be possible to explain the difference between snusha and
> > snokha without reconstrucing another word?
> >
> > M. Kelkar
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> I rule nothing out.
>
> As for your question, I believe no new word need be reconstructed:
>
> snokha -> snoxa -> snoça - snosha -> snusha
>
> Of course, it would be nice to be able to suggest a reason why all that
> happened.

Your derivation of Sanskrit from Russian is quite amusing.

The conventional PIE *snuso- > Satem *snus^o- > Proto-Slav *snUxa
(with 'regularisation' of ending, and cf. OCS snUxa) > Russian
<snokha> and Satem *snus^o- > Pre-Sanskrit *snu.so- > Sanskrit
_snu.sa:_ needs much less special pleading - just an explanation of
why an apparently masculine ending in the word for daughter-in-law was
changed. There may even have been a PIE variant *snusa: - but there
is no gain in multiplying PIE forms over noting parallel
regularisations of the morphology.

Richard.


***
Patrick:

I guess I really misunderstood the nature of the question.

I agree with everything you write above.

I was only trying to illustrate plausible phonological changes regardless of
any specific language.

Can I slip off the hook that way?

***