From: Torsten
Message: 66839
Date: 2010-11-03
>Back formations and analogy are optional (at least seen as such), non-phonetic (not about sound development, supposedly gradual) and not law-like (in the sense that they can't be expressed with the Chomsky machinery for expressing sound laws). But the question of whether there exist instances where a certain type of back formation or analogy have been used with no exception is interesting.
> At 9:24:50 AM on Tuesday, November 2, 2010, Etherman23
> wrote:
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57"
> > <dgkilday57@> wrote:
>
> >> In sum, no evidence for optional soundlaws in these
> >> words, just the usual complications which interfere with
> >> orderly Neogrammarian phonetic change in real languages.
>
> > Aren't back formations and analogy optional sound-laws?
>
> Not really: they're not law-like.