--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, johnvertical@... 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.
> >
> > 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
I'll respond to several things at once.
I don't know why this seems so hard for some people to understand. A change in a sound is no less of a law if it has two outcomes. For example, n > l (opt.) is the same as a law n > l OR n > n (analogous to 2 or -2 being the square root of 4).
Many of these changes are known. Instead of criticizing my methods, learn about what is already known. For example, in Salishan, n and l alternate. There is no regularity, no dialect mixing, only optionality. In a loanwoard like school > skun, it's easily seen by linguists, the people who speak the language know about it, there's nothing else to say. The alt. l/n exists across most of the Americas, and obviously is either from the parent l. of them all, or an incredibly old areal change, borrowing, etc. Since it is also found throughout Asia, nothing else is likely.
It's not weaker to invoke optionality if that is what is seen. Historical linguistics involves finding the right explanation; if optionality exists, then optionality must be given as the explanation. It is wrong, and therefore weaker, to not invoke optionality even if that is what is seen. For example, Italic opt. changed tl > kl (probably tL > kL at the time), but some, for no reason, have attempted to make the Latin change alone regular (depending on morpheme boundaries). This is a complete waste of time to attempt to adhere to a theory of total regularity that is unproven and proven wrong. It is the Neogrammarian Theory, in fact, that is newer and more foolish than some older ones that take similarity and reason into account, even if the exact changes between two words remain unknown. Calling one and not the other "hippie" is ridiculous.
As to "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", are L aestus and iussus to be "without root connection" merely because deriving both from -dht- would risk irregularity? Are Osc puklo- and L pullo- so different from *po:tlo- > L po:culum that a different explanation is needed? This is a foolish strawman argument against a theory that has been proven beyond doubt.
Ignoring optional changes as the explanation has led to long and foolish arguments and too much effort put into what has been made complicated by ignoring the simple. Greek opt. w- / h- from opt. w > xW > h, so IE u- > G hu- from u > wu > xWu > hu; so Myc. h/y from opt. y > xY > h, so IE * xYe_kYwós > * y/xYi_kYWwós > híppos. Similarly, opt. e > i and i > e in -eos/ios (like L -eus/ius), *-ixYn.ós > *-iyn.ós > G -einós / -i:nós, Erinú- / Saran.yú:-, etc.