Richard Wordingham wrote:
--- In, "H.M. Hubey" <HubeyH@M...> wrote:
> Richard Wordingham wrote:
> > --- In, "hubeyh" <HubeyH@M...> wrote:
> >
> > I've used extended SAMPA notation below.
> >

> > > Axiom 1. The changes go from less sonorant to more sonorant.
> > can
> > > be seen in Figs 10-18 or so. (There are two Fig 12s. Mistake.)
> >
> > [f] > [v] and [v] > [f] are both known.  Word initially, [f] >
[v] is
> > known from Dutch and English West Country dialects.
> >
> > [v] > [f] seems to have occured in the development of Tai
> > from Proto-Tai; the evidence lies in the tone development, which
> > indicates initial voicing.  (The Thai letter is a modified Indic
> > the original Indic letter is now pronounced [ph] in Simaese and
> > [p] in the Northern dialects, and and has the same association
> > the tone as the letter for *v.)  It may be relevant that the Tai
> > change is part of a general set of changes whereby voicing
> > were lost.  For example, <hm> and <m> now both represent [m] in
> > Tai dialects.
> >
> > Intervocally, [f] > [v] is unremarkable; word-finally, [v] > [f]
> > unremarkable.
> Ok. What I am referring to is one of the two kinds of change (1)
> physiological, articulatory,
> coarticulation changes (2) changes due to new language learners.
> IT may be compared to water flowing downhill naturally, unless
> uphill by other
> forces (e.g. pumps).  These two have to kept separate to get a
> correlation between
> languages and movement of peoples, and role of substrates.

The role of substrates seem to have been greatly overstated.  What's
the substrate that causes the initial voicing above in some, but not
all, South Germanic dialects?

Devoicing as in the Tai languages, where a voicing contrast becomes
a register contrast 'breathy' v. normal, occurs in many SE Asian
languages, be they Daic, Mon-Khmer or even Chinese. 

Having said that, there are some changes which can reasonably be
attributed to foreign influence.  Additionally, I suppose foreign
influences can stabilise new sounds that otherwise might not last

> > > Axiom 2. The specific mechanism is (to the simplest
> > > nearest neighbor shift.

I suppose we'd better call this *Law* 2.

> > >(Personally I would also disallow k>s.)

In one fell swoop, yes. However, k > c > tS > S > s is not

Not believable. Most languages have ptksn. It is S that develops after s.


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Mark Hubey