Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

150934Re: Evolution of Romance (was: **Answer to Pete**)

Expand Messages
  • John Vertical
    Feb 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:20:24 +0100, Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:

      >The only thing I see speaking against a development g' > j > g' > dZ
      >is Occam's razor! Clearly [g;] or [J\] and [j] can both develop out of
      >and into each other, but to posit a to-and-fro development seems a bit
      >suspicious.

      But you need to set up j >> dZ anyway, so then you have a palatal >
      palatovelar > palatal to-&-fro development there. And for the same, a
      continuant > stop > continuant development is not only possible, but necessary!

      However, it just occurs to me that starting from j > gj) rather than j > J\
      directly would be symmetrical with w > gw)... or "/gj)/" could have been
      phonetically a simplex [J\] since the beginning anyway...

      Is there any evidence on which of the kj) tj) and gj) j mergers took place
      first?

      >The relative infrequency of dj compared to tj is probably
      >a better and sufficient explanation why the voiceless palatals develop
      >differently in Western Romance.

      I'm afraid I don't quite see the logic behind this argument. It's a merger,
      not a chain shift, so there can be no pull effect due to either palatalized
      coronal.


      >For all that I want an alveolar diacritic _a\ seems a poor choice
      >unless a\ stands for some alveolar sound. I dislike _t for breathy
      >voice for the same reason. To me _t for alveolar and _h\ for breathy
      >voice would make much better sense. I guess I'll have to add that one
      >to my list of 'BXS' modifications. Of course the only goal of BXS is
      >to be inherently consistent, unlike Z-SAMPA and even less than CXS
      >caring about backwards compatibility.

      We all have our SAMPA idiolects, don't we? Like me with my preference to use
      ) not _ for an actual tie bar; tS_w_h would become thSw))) or maybe even
      tWS)) ;)

      John Vertical
    • Show all 16 messages in this topic