Re: Re[4]: [tied] Re: PIE initial *a

----- Original Message -----
From: "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 12:46 AM
Subject: Re: Re[4]: [tied] Re: PIE initial *a


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
> To: "fournet.arnaud" <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 9:51 PM
> Subject: Re[4]: [tied] Re: PIE initial *a
>
>
> > At 2:37:16 PM on Wednesday, May 14, 2008, fournet.arnaud
> > wrote:
> >
> >> From: "Brian M. Scott" <BMScott@...>
> >
> >>> It may not make sense, but it can happen: OE <ha:ligdo:m>
> >>> became ME <halido:m> as part of a regular set of changes in
> >>> trisyllabic words. In fact, non-northern varieties of ME
> >>> eliminated /a:/ altogether, partly by shortening and partly
> >>> by a change /a:/ > /O:/, but it still had length contrasts.
> >
> >> What is this word halido:m ?
> >
> > <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/halidom>
> >
> >> The change /a:/ > /O:/ is not at all the same as /a:/ >
> >> /a/
> >
> > Of course not. I didn't say that it was. I said that the
> > total loss of /a:/ was the combined result of two different
> > changes, both regular.
> >
> >> What you are describing is not a general change /a:/ >
> >> /a/.
> >
> > It's not an unconditional change, but it *is* a general
> > change /a:/ > /a/ in certain environments. But this is
> > irrelevant, because Patrick's supposed law of phonological
> > entropy operates at the level of individual roots and isn't,
> > properly speaking, phonological at all. In particular, it
> > doesn't require a general change /a:/ > /a/; it merely says
> > that this change may occur in a particular root if the
> > resulting root does not already exist as a distinct root.
> >
> > Moreover, you appear to have recognized this when you wrote:
> >
> >> The idea that a long a: could become short while there
> >> still are long vowels in the system does not make sense.
> >
> > Taken at face value, this is not a claim that /a:/ > /a/ is
> > impossible when there are still long vowels in the system;
> > it is a claim that no instance of /a:/ > /a/ whatsoever
> > should occur when there are still long vowels in the system.
> > Since it is the second (and in English normal)
> > interpretation that is actually relevant to Patrick's 'law',
> > that is the one that I used. If you actually meant the
> > first interpretation, your statement may perhaps be correct
> > -- I've not given it much thought -- but it has nothing to
> > do with Patrick's 'law'.
> >
> >
> > Please note that I am not in the least defending Patrick's
> > 'law of phonological entropy', which is little more than a
> > license to to make arbitrary adjustments to adjust the
> > theoretically predicted forms to fit the actual data.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> ============
>
> Thank you for these explanations.
>
> What about the word father ?
> Is the <a> not long in all varieties of Modern English ?
> Sounds to me as being neither pot nor cat.
>
> Arnaud.
>
> ========

***

Patrick:

First, I would contend that a change from *a: to *a: is 'phonological' in
any full sense of the word.

Second, it is a phonological change that is familiarly <em>conditioned</em>
just not by the immediate phonological environment as usual but rather by
the peripheral phonological environment in the form of similarly constituted
syllables differing semantically.

It, therefore, is not a "license" for convenient change but rather guideline
for when change is likely to be observed.


***