Re: Terkunan: rules for deriving nouns, verbs, adjectives
- On 11/2/07, Eugene Oh <un.doing@...> wrote:
> 2007/10/31, Dirk Elzinga <dirk.elzinga@...>:The deletion of schwa in inflectional endings such as the past tense
> > It is not true that sound changes do not take morphological boundaries
> > into account. Consider the following examples from a non-standard
> > variety of English:
> [snip examples]
> > Here the final clusters have *not* been simplified. The difference
> > between the two sets of examples is the presence of a morpheme
> > boundary between the consonants of the cluster in the second set;
> > there is no such morpheme boundary in the clusters of the first set of
> > examples (with the possible exception of 'told', which the past
> > tense/past participle of 'tell'.)
> > So it seems that morphological information is crucial to understanding
> > this change, and your statement that "sound changes don't care the
> > least of the morphological structure
> > of the word" is not true, or is at best overstated.
> > Dirk
> It might have been that this variety retained the schwa in the
> past-tense ending long enough for the cluster simplification not to
> have affected it.
and past participle was pretty much complete by 1600, though poets
continued to take advantage of the possibility of its pronunciation
for metrical purposes into the 18th century. The examples come from
AAVE, which wasn't established in North America until well into the
18th century, so the absence of schwa in these suffixes was a
characteristic of this variety from its inception.
Also I observe that the second set of words involves
> historical geminates which could have resulted in a differentThe examples are fine. There is no geminate in 'rolled'; the verb was
> simplification: that of [rolld] > [rold] vs. [told] > [tol], for
> example. It isn't a perfect example.
borrowed from Old French at a time when there had already ceased to be
a singleton/geminate distinction in English. The geminate spelling in
the second group of examples has more to do with the pronunciation of
the vowel as short rather than long.
- [Replyint to Tristan & Mark]
T. A. McLeay, On 02/11/2007 17:08:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:31:31 -0400, "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...>OK. See below. Using CXS (<http://www.theiling.de/ipa/>) and standard British phoneme symbolization (because it's standard, not because I like it).
>> Could you elaborate on the pronunciations of those pairs?
>> I'm not sure about "madder" the color, since I've never heard thatTrue, I believe, for Australia & SE England (for those speakers who do have /a/ lengthening). But in, e.g. Ulster & (iirc) some East Coast US cities (e.g. Baltimore? -- I'm relying on 20 year old memories here), the lengthening is conditioned only phonologically and not lexically, so /a/ lengthens in _add_, and hence _adder_ 'augmenter' = _sadder_ != _adder_ 'snake' = _ladder_.
>> word before, but I suspect it would sound the same as the "angrier"
>> version. Is there a parallel distinction between the herpetic and
>> arithmetic meanings of "adder" in those same dialects?
> If "madder" is monomorphemic, it'd be [m&d@] for me; whereas if it's
> bimorphemic (mad+er) then it's [m&:d@]. Likewise "gladden". But before
> -d the distinction is only available in four adjectives (bad, glad, mad
> and sad), and so "adder" only has one pronunciation.
> (However, I've never heard the words "madder"=brown or "gladden"=irisI guess some conlangers will at least recall that Isildur was killed in the Battle of the Gladden Fields?
> before, but the above are the obvious spelling pronunciations.)
> But, most of the examples And lists below confuse me. "Gladden" seems toThey're all instances of sound-change creating contrasts that are (synchronically) sensitive to morphological juncture.
> be the only example of a sound change being aware of morphological
> boundaries; the rest are created using the same simple rules before and
> after the sound change has ceased to become active.
>> finger : singer [everywhere but NW England]/ng/ = [Ng]
/ng+/ = [N]
>> madder (brown) : madder (more mad)In the Ulster/'Baltimore' variety, /a/ = [a:] before C+ (for certain Cs (lenis Cs?)).
>> gladden (iris) : gladden (make glad) [various places]
In the Australia/SE England variety, it may be that the contrast is phonemicized, e.g. /ad/ 'ad, add' vs /ma:d/ 'mad', with /a:/ phonotactically restricted to "___ lenis-C +" environments. If so, it's pretty marginal. E.g. for me, in the environment "__ g +", it is categorically always [a:] and not [a] (so e.g. _dragger_ and _dagger_ don't rhyme).
>> pause : paws [demotic SE England]_pause_ /pO:z/ [poz]
_paws_ /pO:+z/ [pOz]
The rule is that /O:/ = [O] before a morphological juncture and [o] elswhere.
>> hula : ruler [SE England]_hula_ /hu:l@/ [hu\l6]
_ruler_ /ru:l+@] [rul6]
/u:/ = [u] before tautomorphemic /l/
/u:/ = [u\] elsewhere
>> holy : holey [SE England]_holy_ /h@Uli/ [h6U\li]
_holey_ /h@Ul+i/ [hQUli]
/@U/ = [QU] before tautomorphemic /l/
/@U/ = [6U\] elsewhere
>> nose : knows [Leeds]_nose_ /n@Uz/ [noz]
_knows_ /n@U+z/ [nQUz]
/@U/ = [QU] before a morphological juncture and [o] elswhere.
>> pride : pried [Northumbria]_pride_ /praId/ [prEId]
_pried_ /praI+d/ [praId]
/aI/ = [aI] before a morphological juncture and [EI] elswhere (IIRC).
>> brood : brewed [Scotland, Ireland]_brood_ /brud/ [bru\d]
_brewed_ /bru+d/ [bru\:d]
(I forget what the details of the rule are here. Beyond England I tend to get a bit hazy.)