Page 186 of 238

Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread

Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2022 10:00 am
by Travis B.
Rounin Ryuuji wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 8:53 am
bradrn wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 8:32 am
vlad wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 8:29 am 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/.

Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread

Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2022 10:26 am
by 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).

Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread

Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2022 10:36 am
by Travis B.
Rounin Ryuuji wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 10:26 am 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].

Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread

Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2022 10:50 am
by 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.

Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread

Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2022 10:56 am
by Travis B.
Rounin Ryuuji wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 10:50 am 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.

Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread

Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2022 11:08 am
by 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).

Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2022 10:58 am
by 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?

Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2022 11:04 am
by Travis B.
Rounin Ryuuji wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 11:08 am 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.

Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2022 11:23 am
by Rounin Ryuuji
Travis B. wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 11:04 am
Rounin Ryuuji wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 11:08 am 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).

Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2022 11:54 am
by Travis B.
Rounin Ryuuji wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 11:23 am
Travis B. wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 11:04 am
Rounin Ryuuji wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 11:08 am 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.

Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2022 12:11 pm
by Rounin Ryuuji
Raphael wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 10:58 am 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?

Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2022 12:18 pm
by Raphael
Perhaps yes.

Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2022 1:06 pm
by Linguoboy
Raphael wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 10:58 am 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.

Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2022 1:13 pm
by Raphael
Linguoboy wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 1:06 pm That's a classic spoonerism.
Ah, thank you!

Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread

Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2022 10:34 am
by 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".

Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread

Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2022 2:52 pm
by Richard W
Rounin Ryuuji wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 10:26 am 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.

Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread

Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2022 3:32 pm
by Rounin Ryuuji
Richard W wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 2:52 pm
Rounin Ryuuji wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 10:26 am 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?

Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread

Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2022 3:57 pm
by Travis B.
Rounin Ryuuji wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 3:32 pm
Richard W wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 2:52 pm
Rounin Ryuuji wrote: Wed Sep 07, 2022 10:26 am 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.

Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread

Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2022 5:08 pm
by Rounin Ryuuji
Travis B. wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 3:57 pm
Rounin Ryuuji wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 3:32 pm
Richard W wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 2:52 pm
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?

Re: Linguistic Miscellany Thread

Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2022 6:36 pm
by Travis B.
Rounin Ryuuji wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 5:08 pm
Travis B. wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 3:57 pm
Rounin Ryuuji wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 3:32 pm
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.