From: Rick McCallister
Message: 66806
Date: 2010-10-25
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
>
> --- 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.
Let's not forget the "optional sound law" d > l in Latin found in the words:
lacrima < dacruma
lingua < dingua
le:vir < *daiwer
and there's American English root -route
I pronounce them both the same /Ruwt/
but some people rhyme root with roof
and route with out