Re: Optional Soundlaws

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@...> wrote:

>
> --- 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.

So
'whosoever steals a bike gets two years in the slammer or is let go'
is no less of a law than
'whosoever steals a bike gets two years in the slammer'
and
'whosoever steals a bike is let go'
?

That is hard for me to understand.

> 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).

What do you intend the operator(?) '>' to stand for in that sentence?
"Larger than" or "becomes"?

> 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.

I assume you don't mean the Salishan language family,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salishan_languages
but Salish proper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Salish_language
of which Wikipedia says
'It is also unusual in lacking a simple lateral approximant ... ', http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_approximant
ie. it has no /l/. In what way does Montana Salish alternate between /n/ and the /l/ it doesn't have?

> There is no regularity, no dialect mixing, only optionality.

According to
http://www.native-languages.org/salish.htm
the three languages of the
Spokane-Kalispel-Bitterroot Salish-Upper Pend d'Oreille
family, which could be considered dialects of the same language, have in all approx. 200 speakers. Could you tell us more about the divisions which characterize the dialects in those three languages?

> 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.

Except perhaps that maybe the people who speak the language, and maybe also some linguists, know that their language has no /l/, so they substitute /n/?

> 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.

Is this the 'across most of the Americas' and 'also found throughout Asia' you are referring to?
'Nearly all languages with such lateral obstruents also have the approximant. However, there are a number of exceptions, many of them located in the Pacific Northwest area. For example, Tlingit has /tɬ, tɬʰ, tɬʼ, ɬ, ɬʼ/ but no /l/.[1] Other examples from the same area include Nuu-chah-nulth and Kutenai, and elsewhere, Chukchi and Kabardian.'
[1] Some older Tlingit speakers do have [l], as an allophone of /n/. This can also be analyzed as phonemic /l/ with an allophone [n].

> 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.

So if the sun sometimes goes up and sometimes goes down, it is wrong not to explain it by stating that the sun optionally goes up or down?

> 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).

Please explain.

> This is a complete waste of time to attempt to adhere to a theory
> of total regularity that is unproven and proven wrong.

Example, please.

> 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.

Yes, and besides that, many of them were German.

> Calling one and not the other "hippie" is ridiculous.

Unto the Highest Being, we are all hippies.

> 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?

Good point. It shows the necessity of finding the right sociolect explanation.

> This is a foolish strawman argument against a theory that has been
> proven beyond doubt.

Erh, which one was that?

> 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.

'Optional' is not an explanation, it's a cop-out. An admission of defeat. Calling it something else won't change that.



Torsten