Re: Optional Soundlaws

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, johnvertical@... wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" wrote:
> > 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
>
> These are correspondences. Laws, by definition, don't have "or"s. You can call your components n > l and n > n laws individually, but not their disjunction.

Wrong.

>
> > (analogous to 2 or -2 being the square root of 4).
>
> And "square root" in this sense isn't a function, so a fair analogy.
> (Tho a square root isn't "sometimes 2, sometimes -2", but "2 and -2 simultaneously".)

Both the sounds n and l exist simultaneously within the system of a language; any instance of pronunciation is sometimes n, sometimes l, so the analogy seems fine (though it needn't be that precise in correspondence for my purposes).

> > 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 sounds like you are confusing different phenomena.

No.

>

This example is what we usually call "free variation", a situation where [l] and [n] represent the same phoneme. It is not at all the same as an "optional" change from *one* phoneme to *another* -

>

There is no difference from a historical perspective whether a change creates phonemic or phonetic difference. In Indic k > c^ / V+front, etc., which created only a phonetic difference with the phoneme k pronounced k or c^. Later e>a, making the previously phonetic difference a phonemic difference. In Proto-Celtic opt. y > dY and dY > y, but this free variation has not lasted into any modern language, even if in some d < y varies with (y) in certain words. Attempting to account for d < y by some other env. or any regular law makes no sense.

All free variation results from an opt. change, but just because some Salishan languages now have only free variation for n/l doesn't mean that was the situation in Proto-Salishan or change the historical explanation I gave. In Proto-Salishan, opt. n > l, l > n, ! > l, l > !, ! > T, T > t, etc., all existed. Therefore, any l could become n, but n and l weren't identical at any level. In a modern Salishan language, ! could come from l which itself came from n, but n and ! are not in free variation. If a change no longer occurs, it can still be recognized comparing words in dif. Salishan languages.

>

and which is also not the same as a situation where a free variation later ends up frozen in place (commonly irregularly)

>

This is exactly what happened in Salishan.

>

due to loanwords or later changes introducing a contrast between the sounds in variation.

>
>
> > 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.
>
> Unlike with free variation you can however never have evidence strictly for "optional phonemic change", as doublets can also represent dialect/sociolect mixture, onomatopoetic or ideophonic variation, even mispronunciations or typos.
>

There is no reason to think that. I have evidence for strictly "optional phonemic changes", but you don't think it good enough and give a reason with no basis in reality for why I can't be right.

>
> > 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.
>
> Perhaps. Your approach where "optionally" is always sufficient would howver appear to be one where we don't bother seeking Verner's law and simply state that Germanic has "optional" medial voicing. Or indeed, we could state that Grimm's Law is optional as well and not bother sorting later loans apart from inherited Germanic material.
>

Not at all. I have looked for other expl., just as others have, and no one has found any. The changes such as m>w and w>m, which in some languages is free variation, are in others only seen sometimes in some words (which you describe as "free variation later ends up frozen in place (commonly irregularly)"). In those languages, looking for an env. in which w>m specific to those words is pointless. I tried it and found no good expl., my later experience with languages in which those changes were opt. made it clear they were opt. in the history of the others, too.

>
> Morpheme-boundary-dependant laws, FWIW, are known elsewhere as well, such as English degemination which fails to affect words like "unnatural", "evilly", "backcontry".
>

I know they exist, but they don't explain Italic.

> > 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?
>
> These, not really. Your IE-New Guinean etc. macro-comparanda, most certainly.

I have not made any such "macro-comparanda", only within IE.

>
> The point is that if there is *no* downside in assuming "optional soundlaws", as many can be assumed as one wants, not just one or two, and that does allow for any arbitrary word to be connected with any other. (As in my "dog" example.)
>

I have said nothing against those laws that are not opt., but they are not the only ones. If all n > l, etc., or a conditioning env. can be found, etc., no opt. need be posited.

>
> > 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
>
> There's nothing simple in optionality as you must specify for each and every applicable word separately whether it undergoes the change or not.

Wrong. All applicable words underwent all the opt. changes. It is due to chance which variation(s) remain in each language. Sometimes two or more remain, in which the old alt. is apparent, such as:


Tulalip Lushootseed s!ukWa! 'sun' , s!ukWalb 'moon' ;

and

Bella Coola (nuXalk) snX 'sun' , sunxWt 'day' ;

and

Saanich qWëlqWël'ëÑ' 'sunshine' ; Montana Salish skWkWë?lí?l ;

and

Columbian s^oka?um 'moon' ; Saa syalëqWëm \ syaqWëm \ sqWëqWë´l' ; Klallam sqWqWë´y' \ s?ëm's^ácët ; Cowichan sëms^asat 'sun' ;

in which the opt. changes sY > s/s^; ÑW > qW, ÑW > w/m; lY > y; l > ! > X (by qW) > ? > 0 (by C) are seen w/in and between languages

or

Saa sp'aqW'ëÑ = foam, spalëxWëÑ = steam, pëkWëÑ = spray, spkW'ëÑ = dust; Kl sp'úqW'ëÑ = foam, páyxWëÑ = steam; Nooksack púqW'ëm = foam; BC sqW'pm = spray/dust, sp'iiX = steam, stup! = foam;

or

Kl páq'ëÑ \ kWáq'ëÑ \ s^áq'ëÑ , Saa speq'ëÑ '(n) flower / (v) bloom/blossom' , BC spus = leaf , TL sc^'u!ëy' = leaf , Saa stT'atT'!ë' = leaf

> As an aside, *w > xW > h seems like an unlikely route for the Greek variation,

See Hittite ev.