Re: Optional Soundlaws (was: IE *aidh- > *aus-tr- 'hot, warm (wind)'

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@> wrote:
> > I would have to be a phonological hippie to buy into the notion of "optional soundlaws". No rocket science is required to see that any word in any language could be derived from any word in the same or any other language, merely by tailoring the "optional soundlaws" to achieve the desired result. Philology would collapse into anarchy.
>
> While acknowledging an optional sound law is an admission of defeat, and any explanation that depends on one is thereby weakened, they do appear to be real. Good examples of optional sound laws include:
>
> 1) The Modern English 3-way split of the reflex of OE o:, e.g. Modern English _blood_, _good_ and _mood_.
>
> 2) Classical Latin /ae/ merging with /e:/ ('rustic') or /e/ in Romance.
>
> There is very strong evidence that mergers initially progress word by word, and that offers a very good opportunity for an optional sound law to arise as an incomplete change or for the order of sound laws to be variable, as in _blood_ v. _good_, where it seems that shortening at different times has led to different vowels in present-day Modern English.
>
> Richard.

AFAIK all the clear examples of this sort, however, involve either
a) vowels
or
b) phonation splits (eg. Japanese rendaku)

Stlatos' mentions of "opt." changes, however, are generally neither, but rather involve alternations between otherwise distinct consonants or clusters. Or even metatheses.
If the supposed change also occur without any generality, calling these "sound laws" would be misleading at best. Usually when there's an irregular change, there is at least some environment where it's regular(ish).

And yes, stacking several of these on top of another obviously allows deriving anything from anything else. Say *kundH- > ("optional metathesis") *dHunk- > (Verner+Grimm) > *dung- > ("optional lowering") *dong- > ("optional n > 0") _dog_ ;)

John Vertical