Re: Palatalized s/t in Irish

Actually, on second thought, the sound substitution of <ch> with /s't'/ may not be what it appears. There is a metathesis of -ts- to -st- in Irish, both in loan words and inherited words. Hence the loan words with Ir. /s't'/ from <-ch-> are probably from older /t's'/ (which could then well have been [t'S']).

The initial /s'/ [S'] for ch- is actually more tricky than I first anticipated. Most loans appear to be Anglo-Norman. The problem with this is that Anglo-Norman, as other French dialects, reduced <ch> /tS/ to /S/. This happened after the Normans settled on the British isles, so it is difficult to establish what we have in Irish.

However, loans from Anglo-Norman in English often preserve the affricate ch- (change, charge, chattle, etc.), so it is likely that they should do the same in Irish.

There is a good article on Anglo-Norman loan words in Irish by Risk, in Études Celtiques 12.

Anders

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "gprosti" <gprosti@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Anders" <ollga_loudec@> wrote:
> > Since nobody else has answered, I'll take a stab at this one:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "gprosti" <gprosti@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I believe that Old Irish palatalized <s,t> (as in <secht>, <ticfaid> etc.) are pronounced in Modern Irish like English <sh> and <ch> respectively.
> >
> > I don't think this is universal, there are as far as I know areas where the outcome of *t' is still not an affricate. The outcome of *s' seems to be [S] generally, but anybody with better knowledge of Irish dialectology are invited to correct me.
> >
> > > Are there any theories as to when this change happened?
> >
> > There is a sound substitution, whereby initial English ch- is rendered by Irish s'- (already [S] then?)
>
> When is this substitution first attested? Do English words (or other foreign words) help at all in the dating of [s'] > [S]?
>