Re: Witzel and Sautsutras

3.1. Re: Witzel and Sautsutras
    
 --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "shivkhokra" <shivkhokra@...> wrote:
 
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
> <richard.wordingham@> wrote:
> >
> > Where did the retroflex in English [t`ri:] <tree> come from? 
> > (Actually, I tend to use the affricate /tS/ in such words rather
> > than a retroflex stop.) 
> 
> Most likely from Sanskrit Taru which means a tree.
 
Good heavens, people, this is elementary English _phonetics_. The /t/ of "tree" is 
retroflexed by anticipation of the retroflexed English /r/. Thus there is a distinction
in the pronunciation of "tree" (retro.) vs. "tea" (alveolar). Another ex. would be 
"party" vs. "potty" (at least in standard American English; British Engl. would differ.
This is called allophony!

And as Mr. Wordingham points out, he (and many Americans of my acquaintance) have an 
affricate [tS] in the env. initial /tr-/ and sometimes medial /-VtrV-/.

From correspondence with linguistic knowledgeable friends in Sweden, apparently the same 
or similar conditions cause (or caused) retroflexes to arise in that language.

My own field is Indonesian linguistics. Only Javanese and closely-related Madurese have
phonemic retroflexed /t., d./. The courtly/literary language Old Javanese is full of retroflexes,
mainly in Sanskrit borrowings, but apparently the language also had some native retroflexes, 
and Dempwolff ("Vergleichende Lautlehre..." 1934-38) reconstructed retro. *t. and *d. in 
his Ur-Austronesisch. But present-day scholars have deprecated those reconstructions, 
and hold that the distinct Dempwolffian correspondences (e.g. in Tagalog, but almost
nowhere else) are due to borrowings from Malay and other early trade languages, 
as well as native developments within the Philippines. And Proto-Austronesian is now 
reconstructed with just a single *t and *d.

Most of the Indonesian languages I'm familiar with (in particular Malay/Bahasa 
Indonesia) have dental /t/ vs. alveolar /d/. Javanese and Malay have a long history of
mutual influence, as well as on other IN. languages. When Ml/BI or other
Indonesian languages borrow a Javanese word with a retroflex, it becomes their /t/ 
or /d/. None of the literature I've read has any mention of retroflexed consonants anywhere.

As for the British in India, let's just say that they considered themselves a "superior"
race and never really assimilated to Indian culture, however much they may have learnt
about it and, indeed, appreciated it. They did not intend to become permanent residents
and spend the rest of their lives there, and so had no reason to learn the native languages "perfectly".

Consider the situation of Indian/Pakistani immigrants here in the US. Like all
previous immigrants, the parents speak English (often quite fluently) with a distinct old-
country accent. Their children, however, learn "proper" US English is school and from 
playmates (and so on for succeeding generations) and retain little or no trace of their
ultimate non-native origin. A perfect case in point in Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana,    
whose parents came from India. He not only speaks quite ordinary Amer. English,
but has even, if I'm not mistaken, become a Christian. There's a good case of assimilation!

(Sorry if this message comes through a bit garbled; for some reason line-wrap wasn't working.