Re: Optional Soundlaws

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

>
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "stlatos" <stlatos@> wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
>
> There are laws that a judge can show leniency on, for first time
> offenders, etc., as well as those with opt. punishment (such as
> either monetary fine or punitive service, etc.). This would
> actually have been a good type of example for me to use, but human
> laws do not correspond analogously to sound laws, etc., very well.

True, that was not a good example; as you point out we want sound laws to be like laws of nature, without exception, when possible.

> > > 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"?
>
>
> Use your best judgment.

My best judgment tells me you don't know it yourself, but I'm a nice guy so I asked you, and now you've confirmed my assumption.

> > > 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/.
>
>
> Are you attempting to show the vast extent of your incompetence?

No, yours.

> Quoting from Wikipedia would mean next to nothing,

What's with the subjunctive here? Is this a conditional statement? If so, conditioned on what?

> even if those very pages didn't have many instances showing your
> interpretation wrong like saying Salish = Montana Salish there

That's what Wikipedia is saying, Salish = Montana Salish, and I am quoting from it. I have no interpretation of that.

> to distinguish it from ambiguous Salish = Salishan Languages also,
> or Flathead = Salish = S�lis^ = Montana Salish (with S�lis^
> [seIlIS] ), [sq�llu], etc.

English, my friend. Do you speak it? What does this sentence mean?

> For most Salishan Languages, saying 'It is also unusual in lacking a
> simple lateral approximant ... ' would mean

Another conditional? Conditioned on what?

> that it has n which varies with l (for Montana Salish, they probably
> mean that l varies with � (a lateral fricative),

No, saying that a language doesn't have a simple lateral fricative (ie. /l/) does not mean that it has a simple lateral fricative (ie. /l/) alternating with /n/ or another lateral fricative, and no amount of conditional subjunctives will change that.

> or some phonetic specificity; also most Salishan Languages have
> underling l' which can appear as l? or ?l, etc., and shouldn't be
> _analyzed_ as containing "a simple lateral approximant",

Which no one had proposed, so the only reason for you to bring this up is to cloud the issue.

> which that sentence could also be discussing

No, it couldn't.

> (it's ambiguous and without context as it appears)).

You wish. This is the context, which I provided
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_approximant

and the sentence is unambiguous despite your pathetic attempts at ascribing unwarranted meanings to it.

> >
> In what way does Montana Salish alternate between /n/ and the /l/ it
> doesn't have?
> >
>
>
> Contrary to your ill-based belief,

I don't have a belief. I quoted Wikipedia.

> Montana Salish possesses both the sounds n and l, whatever their
> phonetic status.

If you disagree with Wikipedia, why don't you update it? It's open for anyone, they like to have experts correct them.

> I used "Salish" in a broad way, also describing the situation in
> Proto-Salish

Whatever you described, it wasn't the situation in Montana Salish. Do you have a reference on the n/l situation in Proto-Salishan?

> and modern Salishan Languages like Klallam.

Oh, so it was Klallam. Do you have a reference on the n/l situation in Klallam?

> > > 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?
>
>
> They are irrelevant to all this;

I would think an assessment of the dialect situation in Montana Salish or Klallam or whatever would be relevant before one utters grand statements of the non-influence of dialect mixing in the n/l situation in those languages.

> only the incredibly huge variations in Proto-Salish account for most
> differences in Salishan Languages.

Proto-Salishan is a construct. 'Incredibly huge variations' in that sounds like someone hasn't done his job properly.

> > > 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/?
>
>
> Wrong.

Wrong what? That their language has no /l/? That's what Wikipedia says. Would you dispute it?

>
> > > 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].
>
>
> Tlingit is one, there are many. Some only show it in certain
> words, indicating the older alt. l/n decreased in extent lexically.
>
>
> > > 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?
>
>
> Your attempt at analogy is worthless.

Because?

> A good analogy would be comparing the regularity of when the sun
> goes up and goes down compared to time to rules based on
> environment, such as k>c^/_i vs empty k>k/_a. This kind of rule
> exists, but is not the only kind (I might compare opt. ones to
> atomic decay, or something).

That's my point. Why are you trying to remodel historical phonology on quantum physics?

> > > 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.
> >
>
>
> If I say "n > l OR n > n" I have made one out of an infinity of
> statements. I have narrowed n > _ to 2 out of many (an infinity if
> not limited to human l. or one step A > B, etc.). It is
> significant, descriptive, simple, compact, etc. If there is no
> environment, etc., causing it I've said all that can be said.

You seem to forget languages are used by people to communicate. All factors relevant to that act should be considered for a description of language. If you don't, you're basically just doing another sunday crossword puzzle.

>
> No one has ever found any explanation for when Greek w- > h-
> versus w- > w-. There is no env., no borrowing, just an optional
> change. The exact same alt. xW / w and y / xY existed in Hittite
> (where, as already known, h1 = xY > h > 0, so alt. y / 0 ).

The problem is that the conditions may not be recoverable with the data we have at hand. That doesn't mean there weren't any.



Torsten