Linguistic Miscellany Thread

[Travis B.]

Then again, [zj] became [ʒ] in words like pleasure despite [ʒ] not previously existing in English. But maybe it's easier to innovate a voiced fricative when the voiceless equivalent already exists (and your language already has a voiceless/voiced contrast for other fricatives).

I always thought that [ʒ] was a loan from French… is that not the case?

I think it probably first showed up in some post-deaffrication borrowings from Continental French. Yod-coalescence is a fairly recent change, if I'm remembering correctly, and it hasn't yet affected all varieties of English.

Of course, final /ʒ/ in French loans in English still is not stable even in otherwise Standard English, being frequently merged with /dʒ/.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

It might be worth mentioning that [ʃ] (from Proto-Germanic *sk), [tʃ] (from the palatalisation of earlier *k; both /k tʃ/ in Old English being spelled "c"), and [dʒ] (a medial allophone of /j/ — note edge, bridge are native words, cf. OE ecg, brycg) already existed in English before the Norman Conquest. I suppose this means [ʒ] was already sort-of present, though this strikes me as like saying [ʃ] is present in Spanish because [tʃ] is.

Also, on this note, Middle Japanese [^ɲʑ] [^ɲɟʑ] end up merged as [(^ɲ)(ɟ)ʑ], but the affricated form seems rather more common; but their voiceless (and also somewhat aspirated and not prenasalised) counterparts remain distinct (at least in the standard variety). I wonder if there's some preference for affrication in the voiced consonants, or if these few examples are just a fluke (especially given that deaffrication of both voiced and voiceless affricates seems a fairly common change).

[Travis B.]

It might be worth mentioning that [ʃ] (from Proto-Germanic *sk), [tʃ] (from the palatalisation of earlier *k; both /k tʃ/ in Old English being spelled "c"), and [dʒ] (a medial allophone of /j/ — note edge, bridge are native words, cf. OE ecg, brycg) already existed in English before the Norman Conquest. I suppose this means [ʒ] was already sort-of present, though this strikes me as like saying [ʃ] is present in Spanish because [tʃ] is.

Also, on this note, Middle Japanese [^ɲʑ] [^ɲɟʑ] end up merged as [(^ɲ)(ɟ)ʑ], but the affricated form seems rather more common; but their voiceless (and also somewhat aspirated and not prenasalised) counterparts remain distinct (at least in the standard variety). I wonder if there's some preference for affrication in the voiced consonants, or if these few examples are just a fluke (especially given that deaffrication of both voiced and voiceless affricates seems a fairly common change).

But note that [dz] in particular seems to be quite unstable, readily deaffricating to [z].

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I hadn't thought about that, but... Middle to Modern Japanese provides another example — as we have じ (zi) and ぢ (di) both in practice [^ɲ(ɟ)ʑ], ず (zu) and づ (du) are both usually [ⁿzɨᵝ~ⁿzɯᵝ], though historically づ was a /dz/-like affricate. It does strike me that alveopalatal and palatal sibilants might have some preference for being affricated when voiced, but alveolar and dental sibilants do not.

[Travis B.]

I hadn't thought about that, but... Middle to Modern Japanese provides another example — as we have じ (zi) and ぢ (di) both in practice [^ɲ(ɟ)ʑ], ず (zu) and づ (du) are both usually [ⁿzɨᵝ~ⁿzɯᵝ], though historically づ was a /dz/-like affricate. It does strike me that alveopalatal and palatal sibilants might have some preference for being affricated when voiced, but alveolar and dental sibilants do not.

Agreed - [dʒ] (and like) seems more common than [ʒ] (and like) crosslinguistically, while [z] (and like) seems more common than [dz] (and like) crosslinguistically.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Loanwords also seem to be good for phonemicising allophones and allowing sounds to occur in situations where they wouldn't normally (I think it's already been mentioned that [dʒ] originally didn't occur initially in English before the Norman Conquest; initial voiced consonants are also infrequent in native Japanese words, and where they do occur it's usually the result of analogy with a combining form, or an onomatopoeia).

[Raphael]

I just caught myself talking to myself about the late science fiction writer Rad Braybury. In fact, of course, he was called "Ray Bradbury". Is there a technical term for that kind of thing?

[Travis B.]

Loanwords also seem to be good for phonemicising allophones and allowing sounds to occur in situations where they wouldn't normally (I think it's already been mentioned that [dʒ] originally didn't occur initially in English before the Norman Conquest; initial voiced consonants are also infrequent in native Japanese words, and where they do occur it's usually the result of analogy with a combining form, or an onomatopoeia).

I thought [dʒ] dates back to OE as the pronunciation of /jː/ (often derived from previous /gː/, as seen in bridge, cf. Dutch brug (MD brugge), StG Brücke), marked with <cg> in OE.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Loanwords also seem to be good for phonemicising allophones and allowing sounds to occur in situations where they wouldn't normally (I think it's already been mentioned that [dʒ] originally didn't occur initially in English before the Norman Conquest; initial voiced consonants are also infrequent in native Japanese words, and where they do occur it's usually the result of analogy with a combining form, or an onomatopoeia).

I thought [dʒ] dates back to OE as the pronunciation of /jː/ (often derived from previous /gː/, as seen in bridge, cf. Dutch brug (MD brugge), StG Brücke), marked with <cg> in OE.

Perhaps my wording was unclear — I meant that it didn't occur in initial position (it did occur medially, as you note, as the usual realisation of /jː/, usually graphically cg).

[Travis B.]

Loanwords also seem to be good for phonemicising allophones and allowing sounds to occur in situations where they wouldn't normally (I think it's already been mentioned that [dʒ] originally didn't occur initially in English before the Norman Conquest; initial voiced consonants are also infrequent in native Japanese words, and where they do occur it's usually the result of analogy with a combining form, or an onomatopoeia).

I thought [dʒ] dates back to OE as the pronunciation of /jː/ (often derived from previous /gː/, as seen in bridge, cf. Dutch brug (MD brugge), StG Brücke), marked with <cg> in OE.

Perhaps my wording was unclear — I meant that it didn't occur in initial position (it did occur medially, as you note, as the usual realisation of /jː/, usually graphically cg).

Oh, I missed the initially part there.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I just caught myself talking to myself about the late science fiction writer Rad Braybury. In fact, of course, he was called "Ray Bradbury". Is there a technical term for that kind of thing?

If you consider the whole name to be a single proper noun, maybe call it metathesis?

[Raphael]

Perhaps yes.

[Linguoboy]

I just caught myself talking to myself about the late science fiction writer Rad Braybury. In fact, of course, he was called "Ray Bradbury". Is there a technical term for that kind of thing?

That's a classic spoonerism.

[Raphael]

That's a classic spoonerism.

Ah, thank you!

[Linguoboy]

It only just now dawned on me what "classified" means in the context of "classified ads". All this time, I've basically treated it as an unanalysed name like "obituary".

[Richard W]

I wonder if there's some preference for affrication in the voiced consonants, or if these few examples are just a fluke (especially given that deaffrication of both voiced and voiceless affricates seems a fairly common change).

You can add the Sanskrit reflexes of the PIE 'palatal' stops - <ś>, <j> and <jh> - fricative, stop and stop.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I wonder if there's some preference for affrication in the voiced consonants, or if these few examples are just a fluke (especially given that deaffrication of both voiced and voiceless affricates seems a fairly common change).

You can add the Sanskrit reflexes of the PIE 'palatal' stops - <ś>, <j> and <jh> - fricative, stop and stop.

Are the ś, j, jh transcriptions of PIE or Sanskrit?

[Travis B.]

I wonder if there's some preference for affrication in the voiced consonants, or if these few examples are just a fluke (especially given that deaffrication of both voiced and voiceless affricates seems a fairly common change).

You can add the Sanskrit reflexes of the PIE 'palatal' stops - <ś>, <j> and <jh> - fricative, stop and stop.

Are the ś, j, jh transcriptions of PIE or Sanskrit?

Those are transcriptions of Sanskrit.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

You can add the Sanskrit reflexes of the PIE 'palatal' stops - <ś>, <j> and <jh> - fricative, stop and stop.

Are the ś, j, jh transcriptions of PIE or Sanskrit?

Those are transcriptions of Sanskrit.

Should those be "fricative, affricate, affricate", then?

[Travis B.]

Are the ś, j, jh transcriptions of PIE or Sanskrit?

Those are transcriptions of Sanskrit.

Should those be "fricative, affricate, affricate", then?

In other Indo-Aryan languages j and jh are commonly affricates, but I don't think it's certain whether those were affricates or stops in Sanskrit, just that they were palatal.