Re[2]: [tied] PIE Word Formation (2)

At 5:57:48 PM on Friday, March 31, 2006, Richard Wordingham
wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan"
> <proto-language@...> wrote:

[...]

>>> *-ro- losing its *-r- because there is another liquid in
>>> the adjacent syllable is pure fantasy? It's called
>>> dissimilatory loss, like <library> becoming "lib'ary" or
>>> <secretary> "seck'etary". To quote H.H. Hock
>>> (_Principles of Historical Linguistic_, in the section
>>> devoted to dissimilation), "the only process which could
>>> be considered a 'complete' dissimilation is
>>> _dissimilatory loss_..."

>> Neither of the examples you cited are "dissimilatory
>> loss"; they are stupid, sloppy enunciation not recognized
>> by any competent speaker of English.

> Isn't 'dissimilatory loss' an example of sloppy
> enunciation?

> I think Patrick is right in thinking that they are not
> examples of dissimilatory loss. Both words are naturally
> subject to reversible syncopation. Iin the first case, you
> have library > libr'ry (syncopation) > lib'ry
> (degemination) > lib'ary (desyncopation). Does the second
> example occur in rhotic dialects?

Yes, though not nearly so often as 'liberry'.

[...]

Brian