Re: [tied] Must sound change be linguistically motivated?
----- Original Message -----
From: "mkelkar2003" <smykelkar@...>
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 3:56 PM
Subject: [tied] Must sound change be linguistically motivated?
> Thanks to P. Manansala for the Abstract.
> M. Kelkar
> Must sound change be linguistically motivated?
> Author: Blust, Robert A.1
> Source: Diachronica, Volume 22, Number 2, 2005, pp. 219-269(51)
> Publisher: John Benjamins Publishing Company
> A number of well-documented sound changes in Austronesian languages do
> not appear to be either phonetically or phonologically motivated.
> Although it is possible that some of these changes involved
> intermediate steps for which we have no direct documentation, the
> assumption that this was always the case appears arbitrary, and is in
> violation of Occam's Razor. These data thus raise the question whether
> sound change must be phonetically motivated, as assumed by the
> Neogrammarians, or even linguistically motivated, as assumed by
> virtually all working historical linguists.
In the past, I innocently suggested that a part of the explanation might lie
in actual physical changes in the architecture of the mouth, and was accused
of 'racism', which is an easy out for a difficult question.
- the "tapping" or "flapping" of intervocalic /t/ and /d/
> in North American and Australian Englishes)and in Danish (which makes me feel at home in American English). Or
rather, intervocalic -t- > voiceless -d- > flapped -d-.