Linguistic Miscellany Thread

[Estav]

However, why do you say that it merged with [alC]? I mean, it does merge with it eventually, but I'd think the spellings <eau iau> it gets suggest something like [eaw jaw] before getting rid of the first segment and then [aw] proceeding to become [o]. Godefroy's dictionary of Old French mentions the spelling <biel> in the 14th-century Chronicles of Jean Froissart too.

I really meant to say that it ultimately merged with the reflex of [alC] as /o(ː)/. I don't know how it developed.

[anteallach]

One has to wonder how much damage was done by stripping out the length mark <ː> when very significant.

It would help explain why German does so surprisingly poorly. The author notes that, in the German case, "[t]he most common error was not to guess if a /t/ should be written as a single <t> or as a double <t>"--a choice determined almost entirely by whether the preceding vowel is long or short.

Did they remove the length mark or not? I find the paragraph in question not very clear: they say "most pitches were removed" but then that "the /ː / pitch" (sic) was "noticed as indispensible for some orthographies", mentioning Finnish and Arabic but not German. Possibly they removed it for most but not for Finnish and Arabic?

Similarly it's not clear whether they removed stress in Spanish. The fact that their system couldn't predict whether Spanish vowels had accents suggests they probably did, but then again it thought that French bonjour might be spelt bongorre, so rules were not being perfectly learnt. Perhaps that's the German issue: it just didn't learn the rules for the interaction between vowel length and how consonants are written.

[Linguoboy]

I found that paragraph hella confusing. Certainly eliminating stress (and ignoring any resulting vowels reduction in unstressed syllables) is the only explanation I can see for how Russian did as well as it did.

[Znex]

I was reading up about Gaulish (and by extension pre-Roman Celtic) phonetics as hypothesised by analysing Gaulish writing, and one writer brought up this interesting observation: at least in the Narbonensis dialect area of Gaulish, there is some confusion between which graphemes should represent particular phonemes (in both Greco-Gallic and Romano-Gallic writing).

Edit: (Source can be found on JSTOR.)

1. Intervocalic /b t k/ are interchangeably represented by <B T C/K> (primarily) and <PH TH/Θ CH/Χ> (secondarily)
eg. akito- > Gr. <ΑΧΙΤΟ-> and La. <ACITO->; mako- > La. <MACO> and La. <MACHO>; katu- > La. <CATHU-> and Gr. <ΚΑΤΟΥ->; dubios > La. <DUPHIUS> and La. <DUBIUS>

2. Intervocalic /b d g/ are interchangeably represented by <B D/Δ G/Γ/∅> (primarily) and <P/Π T C/Κ> (secondarily)
eg. magiorixs > La. <MAIORIX> and La. <MAGIORIX>; -brigi > La. <-BRIGI> and La. <-BRICI>; arisiton > La. <ARISITUM> and La. <ARISIDUM>; ebidios > La. <EPIDIUS> and La. <EBIDEOS>

The conclusion made by this writer is this interchange did not indicate lenition per se, but at least indicated a contrast between the Greco-Roman phonologies and Gaulish phonology that is to be met.

Now the writer suggested that this interchange was to meet a supposed missing fortis-lenis/tense-lax distinction in Gaulish; while Latin had a primary voicing distinction and a secondary fortis-lenis distinction (voiced=lenis, unvoiced=fortis, geminate=fortis), Gaulish rather may have had only lenis singleton plosives (voiced=lenis, unvoiced=lenis, geminate=fortis).

I want to explore this for a bit because I'm struggling to see how this plays out with what we know of fortis-lenis and diachronic change. As a brief tangent, let's look at the phonological systems we do know about (considering only the plosives at this time).

First, we know what Greek phonology and Latin phonology looked like at the time:

Greek was in the process of (or had completed) its voiced consonant lenition as of Roman times, but the Greek alphabet was borrowed into Western Europe (and indeed, as the predecessor of the Etruscan and Roman alphabets) before this occurred, so the Greek alphabet was interpreted according to the ancient phonology. There were two common variants of the Greek alphabet: western (the ancestor of the Italic alphabets) and eastern (the ancestor of Modern Greek; also used by Greek colonists); for efficacy, the western letters are written below with the Latin letters closest in form. Greek also had geminates, although these weren't quite so common as in Italic and Celtic.

Unvoiced: /p t k/ <P T K/Q> <Π Τ Κ> (<Q> was used for /k/ before back vowels, and subsequently was adopted for /kʷ/ in Italic)
Voiced: /b d g/ <Β D C> <Β Δ Γ> (<G> is innovated in Latin)
Aspirate: /pʰ tʰ kʰ/ <Φ Θ Ψ> <Φ Θ Χ> (<X> represented /ks/ in Western Greek and retained this value into Italic writing)
Geminate: /pp (tt) kk/ <PP TT KK> <ΠΠ TT ΚΚ>

In later Greek, the phonology changes thus:

/p t k/ unchanged; but NT > (N)D
/b d g/ > /β ð ɣ/
/pʰ tʰ kʰ/ > /ɸ θ x/
/pp kk/ > /p k/ (other geminates likewise merged with their singleton counterparts)

----

Latin phonology possessed much a similar system minus the aspirates, except Latin also had allophonic aspiration (in contrast to Ancient Greek): stops were mildly aspirated initially and near liquids. So the primary distinction was certainly voicing, but Latin also had a secondary fortis-lenis distinction. Latin also had a sizeable geminate series.

Unvoiced/fortis: /p t k kʷ/ <p t c qu>
Voiced/lenis: /b d g gʷ/ <b d g gu>
Geminate/fortis: /pp tt kk kkʷ/ <pp tt cc cqu>

In Western Romance, the phonology changes thus:

/p t k kʷ/ intervocalically > /b d g g(w)/ (>> /β ð ɣ ɣ(w)/) (initial unvoiced stops lose aspiration)
/b d g gʷ/ intervocalically > /β ð ɣ ɣ(w)/ (> ∅)
/pp tt kk/ > /p t k/ (including originally aspirated allophones of unvoiced stops!)

(Italo Romance and Eastern Romance don't change markably as a whole in this fashion and are rather either more conservative or palatal-leniting.)

----

The specifics of ancient Celtic phonology we don't know much about, but we do know what consonants were distinguished (even if not how exactly) and what were the later phonological evolutions to Brythonic and Goidelic. Proto-Celtic on the surface has a very similar system to Latin phonology:

Unvoiced: /t k kʷ/
Voiced: /b d g gʷ/
Geminate: /tt kk kkʷ/

In Brythonic Celtic, the phonology changes thus: (including the assumed changes: kʷ > p and gʷ > w)

/p t k/ intervocalically > /b d g/
/b d g/ intervocalically > /β ð ɣ/ (~> ∅)
/pp tt kk/ > /p t k/ > /ɸ θ x/ (merging with singleton reflexes from LT/XT/sT>hT clusters)

In Goidelic Celtic on the other hand:

/t k kʷ/ intervocalically > /θ x xʷ/ (except in LT/XT clusters)
/b d g gʷ/ intervocalically > /β ð ɣ w/ (~> ∅)
/tt kk kkʷ/ > /t k kʷ/
/bb dd gg ggʷ/ > /b d g gʷ/ (new geminates from syncope)

----

The obvious commonality across these languages firstly is the spirantisation of voiced stops. Gemination also generally tends towards simplification here (although Brythonic undergoes a second spirantising lenition, masking this).

The inconsistency lies with singleton voiceless stops. If on the one hand we compare Greek and Romance, the Romance aspirate stop reflexes resemble the stability of the Greek voiceless stops as well as the geminates in general, which re-affirms the case for these particular stops being considered fortis (if not equivalent in how they are fortis). Brythonic and Goidelic voiceless stops also resist lenition in similar if not identical word positions to Romance, which implies these particular stops are also fortis (at least at first, in the case of Brythonic).

Where not aspirated, the Romance voiceless stops all undergo voicing lenition. This is in common with intervocalic Brythonic voiceless stops. On the other hand, the intervocalic Goidelic voiceless stops (and remaining/new Brythonic voiceless stops) undergo spirantisation, which implies a difference in phonation (while still being lenis, or prone to weakening).

Moreover, this is all in stark contrast to what we see in Gaulish transcription; voiced stops are more likely to be written with unvoiced graphemes than the reverse, which upon first glance seems to imply a reverse movement if anything. We haven't considered Proto-Germanic here, which famously exhibits Grimm's law and Verner's law. Could Germanic influence be at play here? But at this point, I'm speculating.

Is there any way we can determine the exact phonations here in comparison with how other languages undergo lenition? How many different ways can fortis-lenis, before lenition, be expressed if voicing is still the primary phonemic distinction? Evidently in Brythonic, there were two sequential lenis phonations different from each other.

[Kuchigakatai]

I think [ɛlC] actually merged with [alC], not [elC], except for when the [ɛ] was originally in an open syllable (where it usually diphthongized to [jɛ]). Hence beaux, peaux, nouveaux, etc.

Thank you! I see it is [jɛlC] that becomes a front rounded vowel later, not [ɛlC]. I'll edit my post with a correction later.

I have edited it with your correction now.

[Linguoboy]

Does anyone have an explanation for how the first two syllables of mayonnaise could contract to /mæn/ in NAE? Like that has got to be one of the weirdest alternations ever.

[bradrn]

Does anyone have an explanation for how the first two syllables of mayonnaise could contract to /mæn/ in NAE? Like that has got to be one of the weirdest alternations ever.

That doesn’t seem weird to me at all. I don’t speak NAE, but I say it [ˌmæjənˈæ͡iz], and I can easily imagine this evolving [ˌmæjənˈæ͡iz] → [ˌmæj.ə̆nˈæ͡iz] → [ˌmæjnˈæ͡iz] → [ˌmænˈæ͡iz].

[Kuchigakatai]

Does anyone have an explanation for how the first two syllables of mayonnaise could contract to /mæn/ in NAE? Like that has got to be one of the weirdest alternations ever.

Hypercorrection due to southern vowel breaking?

Hey, if "pit" could be [pʰɪt] or [ˈpʰɪjət], "met" [mɛt] or [ˈmɛjət], "land" [lænd] or [ˈlæjənd], and "there" [ˈðɛəɹ] or [ˈðɛjəɹ], surely "mayonnaise" [ˈmeɪəneɪz] could be hypercorrected to [ˈmɛəneɪz], and reinterpreted as /mæn-/ due to the widespread North American tensing of /æ/ to [ɛə] before /n/.

This post is much more tongue-in-cheek than not, but I wouldn't fully discount it...

[anteallach]

Does anyone have an explanation for how the first two syllables of mayonnaise could contract to /mæn/ in NAE? Like that has got to be one of the weirdest alternations ever.

Hypercorrection due to southern vowel breaking?

Hey, if "pit" could be [pʰɪt] or [ˈpʰɪjət], "met" [mɛt] or [ˈmɛjət], "land" [lænd] or [ˈlæjənd], and "there" [ˈðɛəɹ] or [ˈðɛjəɹ], surely "mayonnaise" [ˈmeɪəneɪz] could be hypercorrected to [ˈmɛəneɪz], and reinterpreted as /mæn-/ due to the widespread North American tensing of /æ/ to [ɛə] before /n/.

This post is much more tongue-in-cheek than not, but I wouldn't fully discount it...

Well, I say [meənˈeːz], and that [eə], even though I perceive it as bisyllabic, is going to come very close to the diphthongal realisation of /æ/ before /n/ and /m/ in American English. Doesn't the same happen with Graham/Graeme, at least for some Americans?

[Linguoboy]

Well, I say [meənˈeːz], and that [eə], even though I perceive it as bisyllabic, is going to come very close to the diphthongal realisation of /æ/ before /n/ and /m/ in American English. Doesn't the same happen with Graham/Graeme, at least for some Americans?

IME, both are /ˈgræm/ in American English. I had to learn to say it bisyllabically when I met an English Graham, just as I had to learn to say [ˈhæˑɹi] when I met a Harry from NYC.

[Travis B.]

Sequences of vowels followed by /ə/ followed by a consonant seem rather unstable in NAE as shown by mayonnaise, Graham/Graeme, and crayon. In my own speech, when I have flap elision where the following vowel is /ə/ which in turn is followed by a consonant, frequently that following vowel is lost and instead the preceding vowel is lengthened.

[Kuchigakatai]

Talking to English native speakers who don't know anything about linguistics is a strange experience sometimes, to the point I start doubting myself sometimes... Last December, I was talking to a woman from Chicago who was in Vancouver for a short while called "Brianna", and we were briefly talking about the pronunciation of her name, which she said was [bɹiˈɑnə]. She was saying that because, naturally, nearly everyone expects it to be [bɹiˈænə] as the name normally is, she prefers to just tell people she's "Brie"--better than hearing her name pronounced "wrong" (wrong in terms of how her parents have always pronounced it).

My brother, who also knows nothing about linguistics, was with us, and he wasn't really understanding what we were talking about. So I explained to him that she was saying that although "Brianna" is normally [bɹiˈænə], her parents had raised her pronouncing it [bɹiˈɑnə], "with the vowel of 'bot', 'lot'". When I said that, she disagreed that it was the vowel of bot/lot. Then I added, "I'm talking about the vowel of 'father'", and then she totally agreed that was the sound.

Could it be that she actually retains the /ɑ/ vs. /ɒ/ distinction, or was she just getting fooled by the orthography, because the single /ɑ/ phoneme was <a> in "father" but not in "bot/lot"? I remember having an argument on similar lines with a guy from Wyoming, also naïve about linguistics, years ago about the existence of /ɑ/ vs. /ɒ/ in his American English as well...

I mean, in contrast, people generally agree that <ee> and <ea> sound the same in "beet" and "beat", and that "bare" and "bear" are homophones. But I have seen this discussion come up regarding /ɑ/ vs. /ɒ/, and I'm not so sure there isn't something of interest there. Like, in linguistics you see some eastern corridor accents like New York and Boston along with those of New England as at least optionally retaining the /ɑ/ vs. /ɒ/ distionction, but I suspect it may be more widespread than that, at least in an "optional" way?

[Nortaneous]

could be orthographic interference - in such a situation I'd try asking her if they rhyme. maybe also asking her to pronounce both words and seeing if I can hear a difference, but that isn't as reliable

[Travis B.]

I knew a Brianna in school and her name was always pronounced /briˈɑnə/; I never thought of pronouncing it /briˈænə/.

As for FATHER (I am not going to say PALM since palm actually has a different vowel for some people here such as myself) versus LOT, they are unquestionably merged in quality here; I have not heard anyone suggest that they have different sounds. However phonetically they are distinct if predictable in distribution, since they differ from length but length here is predictable aside the effect of flap elision and the neutralization of flapped /t d/.

[mae]

-

[din]

Quick question:

I know there are some languages were sounds disappear due to affixation (e.g. vowel deletion in Aymara). Is there a commonly accepted name for an affix that deletes sounds?

[Nortaneous]

Quick question:

I know there are some languages were sounds disappear due to affixation (e.g. vowel deletion in Aymara). Is there a commonly accepted name for an affix that deletes sounds?

disfix?

[WeepingElf]

Quick question:

I know there are some languages were sounds disappear due to affixation (e.g. vowel deletion in Aymara). Is there a commonly accepted name for an affix that deletes sounds?

I have heard the term "subtractive morphology" for this.

[din]

I have heard the term "subtractive morphology" for this.

disfix?

Thanks guys!

[Zju]

Normally languages don't allow nominative reflexives:
He hit himself.
*Heself hit him.

How does that work in ergative-absolutive languages? Are reflexives prohibited in the ergative or absolutive slotf?