**From:** hubeyh

**Message:** 463

**Date:** 2003-08-07

--- In phoNet@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"

<richard.wordingham@n...> wrote:

found in the file which I just uploaded. It is an article published in

the Journal of the Inter. Quant. Ling. Association circa 1999.

Here are the axiom(s) (axiom candidates)

Axiom 0. Most changes are co-articulation effects of various kinds.

Axiom 1. The changes go from less sonorant to more sonorant. These can

be seen in Figs 10-18 or so. (There are two Fig 12s. Mistake.)

Axiom 2. The specific mechanism is (to the simplest approximation)

nearest neighbor shift. (A similar phenomenon (!) (actually analysis

of the phenomenon) in physics is called nearest-neighbor interaction).

In other words, no shifts of the type t>a allowed. (Personally I would

also disallow k>s.)

Axiom 3. The system should be hierarchical e.g. get the commonest

changes to form a kind of a skeleton and add the more exotic ones on

top of these. This is not much more than an approximation scheme that

is already in use in linguistics (as well as in many branches of

sciences).

Axiom 4. When these are being used in reconstruction, make explicit

your principle e.g. are you using some kind of an averaging?

These are obviously subject to revision especially by me :-)

PS. Physical constraints etc can best be seen in the book by Sheila

Bloomstein and .... (I think I gave references in the article) and

also Stevens' works.

PPS. Avoid at all costs inventing new words constantly when a

hierarchical naming scheme (an approximation and ordering scheme) can

be used. This is especially something that would be used for

discussing grammar (e.g.various cases, and tenses).

PPPS. The article is not the latest one. It is missing an appendix or

two, but I cannot find the latest one.

<richard.wordingham@n...> wrote:

> What general principles are known that restrict the possible soundchanges a

> language may undergo? There seem to be tendencies, but I get theimpression

> that the plausibility criteria are empirical rather than captured bya few

> general principles.I would like to propose some candidates. The justifications can be

>

> Richard.

found in the file which I just uploaded. It is an article published in

the Journal of the Inter. Quant. Ling. Association circa 1999.

Here are the axiom(s) (axiom candidates)

Axiom 0. Most changes are co-articulation effects of various kinds.

Axiom 1. The changes go from less sonorant to more sonorant. These can

be seen in Figs 10-18 or so. (There are two Fig 12s. Mistake.)

Axiom 2. The specific mechanism is (to the simplest approximation)

nearest neighbor shift. (A similar phenomenon (!) (actually analysis

of the phenomenon) in physics is called nearest-neighbor interaction).

In other words, no shifts of the type t>a allowed. (Personally I would

also disallow k>s.)

Axiom 3. The system should be hierarchical e.g. get the commonest

changes to form a kind of a skeleton and add the more exotic ones on

top of these. This is not much more than an approximation scheme that

is already in use in linguistics (as well as in many branches of

sciences).

Axiom 4. When these are being used in reconstruction, make explicit

your principle e.g. are you using some kind of an averaging?

These are obviously subject to revision especially by me :-)

PS. Physical constraints etc can best be seen in the book by Sheila

Bloomstein and .... (I think I gave references in the article) and

also Stevens' works.

PPS. Avoid at all costs inventing new words constantly when a

hierarchical naming scheme (an approximation and ordering scheme) can

be used. This is especially something that would be used for

discussing grammar (e.g.various cases, and tenses).

PPPS. The article is not the latest one. It is missing an appendix or

two, but I cannot find the latest one.