Re: Gmc. w-/g-, j-/g-

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian M. Scott" <bm.brian@...> wrote:

>
> At 3:44:21 AM on Thursday, October 20, 2011, stlatos wrote:
>
> > There should be no reason for any linguist to reject a
> > sound change because it's optional.
>
> Nothing except intelligence.
>
> Optional sound changes are a methodological nightmare; at
> best they are admissible only under the strictest controls.

I didn't argue against a regular sound change, I argued against a case of analogy (which also creates irregular outcomes, apparently the reason Lehmann chose it).


Lehmann argued for "laryngeals" as the expl. for several apparently irregular changes (at least at first and second glance) without providing an environment for most, and an incorrect environment for others (as I've partially covered). With complete regularity, "laryngeals" couldn't be the expl. for all these changes. I therefore (among other reasons), proposed irregularity.

> Failure to recognize this leads to such crap as '[a]ll known
> languages not currently classified as IE are actually from
> one branch of IE: Indo-Iranian'.
>
> (<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/62316>)

You have no way of knowing whether this is true, so don't say it's false.

> They also (as Douglas pointed out) obviate any need to look
> for real but highly non-obvious sound laws.

Attempts to find a "real but highly non-obvious sound law" often lead to linguists attempting to fit a law that must be tailored to fit every case, with a strange set of env. and env. exceptions, making them unlikely. This includes such changes as e-a > a-a in Celtic, cases of KY>K not >C and the reverse in Armenian, etc.