Re: [tied] Re: On the ordering of some PIE rules

Which gives rise an unrelated question
Linguistic books tend to categorize <or> as /Or/
("awr") rather than /or/, yet I have never heard
anyone ever pronounce <or> as /Or/.
The closest thing to such a pronunciation I've ever
heard is New York pronunciation of <orange> as /aR@.../
rather than standard US /oR@.../ and colloquial /ornj/
I have heard /O/ among some, but not all, people who
drop final /-r/, e.g. but never among those who
pronounce it, e.g. <whore> as /hO/ in some British and
Northeastern US dialects vs. /ho/ (not /how/) in some
Southern US and African-American dialects
They also distinguish <poor> from <pore> and <hoarse>
from <horse>. I've lived in almost every region of the
US and I last herd this distinction from very old
people when I was a child, and their distinction was
/pu@.../ vs. /por/, /hu@.../ vs. /hors/
Any ideas?

--- Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

> On 2007-06-07 16:41, tgpedersen wrote:
>
> >> No, "classical" GL is not a rule with an
> exception. No linguists
> >> uses the word "exception" in this way.
> >
> > Aha. So whoever calls it an exception is not a
> linguist.
>
> The term "exception" is reserved for isolated words
> that don't seem to
> obey any regularities. In other words an exception
> in this sense is "a
> case that does not conform to a rule or
> generalization":
>
> http://www.bartleby.com/61/27/E0262700.html
>
> Here is an example: Middle English /O:/ has become a
> diphthong ([oU],
> [&U] or something similar) in mainstream accents of
> English (including
> RP), in words such as <bone, home, boat, load, loaf,
> oats, oak, moan,
> stone, road, rode, drove, old, bold, only>. The
> diphthongisation was
> suppressed (blocked or reversed) before /r/, as in
> <oar, boar, lore,
> roar, lord, more, sore, hoar, glory>. This lexical
> set represents not an
> exception (they all conform to a simple
> generalisation) but a
> subregularity. _Exceptions_ are quirky,
> unpredictable cases like <one,
> once, sorry, gone, shone, cloth, broad>, which have
> the "wrong" vowel
> instead of the one expected in a given context.
>
> >> The _blocking environment_ is part of the
> original formulation of
> >> GL, in itself fully regular, so the outcome of GL
> remains
> >> predictable.
> >
> > That's right, GL has two in-built exceptions.
>
> GL includes special clauses referring to lexical
> sets containing certain
> clusters:
>
> (1) *tt > *ss
> (2) *t remains unchanged after PIE *p, *k(W), *s
>
> ELSEWHERE,
>
> (3) *p, *t, *k(W) > *f, *T, *x(W)
>
> A true exception would be a word in which, e.g. PIE
> *t > PGmc. *t
> word-initially, or, say, *pt > *st. Actually, it was
> once believed that
> many unpredictable deviations from the pattern of
> Grimm's Law should be
> admitted, but since the time when those deviations
> were shown (e.g. by
> Verner) to follow regular patterns of their own,
> they have been known as
> "apparent exceptions".
>
> Piotr
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz