Print

Print


On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Eric Christopherson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Alex Fink wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:54:20 -0400, Basilius <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:37:24 +0200, Njenfalgar wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have this language (as yet unnamed), where I decided the following
>>>> sound-change would happen: if two consecutive consonants (i.e.: with one
>>>> vowel in between) have the same POA, then one will change. It would not
>>>> be
>>>> the POA that changes, but I was intending to do something else, like
>>>> lenition or the like.
>>>
>>> (1) The idea is good and interesting to explore :)
>>>
>>> For example, the well-known restrictions on root consonant combinatorics
>>> in
>>> Semitic langs are, in all probability, produced by some changes of that
>>> type.
>>
>> Well, except that the change in question doesn't change the fact of having
>> two consecutive consonants at the same place of articulation.  It would
>> lead
>> to funny cooccurrence relations, something like *C-V-(strong C at the same
>> position), where "strong" means 'not the product of any of the possible
>> lenitions'.
>>
>> Overall it's a strange change; I'd be fairly surprised if there was
>> natlang
>> precedent.
>
> It might come from an earlier state of affairs where one of the sounds is an
> aspirated stop or ejective; some languages have synchronic rules
> dissimilating such sequences, e.g. ancient Greek, which (IIRC) changed the
> first aspirated stop to its unaspirated voiceless counterpart.

Yup, leading to wonderful inflections like _thrix_, gen. _trichos_,
where the nom. lost the 2nd aspirate to an earlier rule khs > ks.



-- 
Andreas Johansson

Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?