conditioning of Uto-Aztecan *p in Nahuatl
Brian Joseph
bjoseph at ling.ohio-state.edu
Sat Dec 1 16:17:51 UTC 2012
This discussion of an important aspect of historical methodology is all
very interesting, but (without critiquing any of the examples presented
except for the Greek final -n case, on which see below) I would urge
everyone to read the excellent review article by Hans Henrich Hock on
Raimo Anttila's 1972 textbook on historical linguistics; the review was
published in Language in 1976 (volume 52.1, pp. 202-220). What is
especially important in it is contained in pp. 211-220 as Hock offers a
detailed critique of Anttila's many examples (actually, Hock shows,
putative examples) of grammatically conditioned sound change. Hock
succeeds in proposing compelling accounts in each case that involve
phonetically conditioned sound change coupled with analogy (or sometimes
other processes of change such as borrowing) that for the most part are
more explanatory than a grammatical conditioning account. I would suggest
that the same strategy could be employed for the cases brought up in the
past several messages that started with Nathan Hill's query (in this way,
I am solidly with Nathan in not wanting to give up the strongest version
of the Neogrammarian stance on sound change, not without a fight, so to
speak).
As for the Greek, Dr. Karatsareas is correct, as far as his data goes, but
it is very likely that the -n# in the genitive plural is either a
restoration from learned Greek (always an issue in dealing with Greek) or
else restored as a sandhi variant (e.g. if originally preserved before
vowels and lost before (certain) consonants). I base this on the fact
that 19th century sources, especially Albert Thumb's Handbook of the
Modern Greek
Vernacular, originally published in German in the 1890s but known widely
in its 1912 English translation), give the genitive plural regularly as
being in -o (<-ω>, i.e. Greek omega) or -one (<-ωνε>); the -o variant
suggests loss of -n#, and the -one variant suggests the accretion of an -e
from a following word (a sort of resegmentation), though, as I mentioned,
restoration from the learned language, essentially borrowing from a
diglossically higher register perhaps even mediated by the orthography (in
which case it could be viewed as borrowing from the written language)
cannot be dismissed easily in the Greek sociolinguistic context.
As I see it, what is at stake in allowing nonphonetic conditioning of
sound change is that with only phonetic conditioning we have a basis for
understanding how sound change can get started, how it originates (the
point of actuation, some might call it) whereas -- following Hock -- if we
give up phonetic conditioning, we have no explanatory basis for the
actuation. And letting in grammatical conditioning in even one case (as
Nathan seems to realize) would mean that there would never be a case in
which we could rule it out; it would always be an unexplanatory
possibility for the starting point of a sound change. If anyone is
interested, I lay these issues out more fully in my 1999 paper
"Utterance-Finality: Framing the Issues", in B. Palek, O. Fujimura, &. B.
Joseph (eds.) Proceedings of LP ‘98 (4th Linguistics and Phonetics
Conference). Prague: Charles University Press (1999), Vol. 2: 3-13
(downloadable as #138 from the publication list on my website,
www.ling.osu.edu/~bjoseph).
So count me as a strict Neogrammarian, a badge I am proud to wear!
--Brian
Brian D. Joseph
The Ohio State University
>
> Hello,
>
> Here is another counterexample to the absolute rigidity of a phonetic
> process, from the Nisqa'a language (British Columbia, Canada): a -t
> pronominal suffix (3rd sg) is phonologically deleted before a "connective"
> (consisting of a fricative "s" or "L" (lateral)) under most conditions),
> but with one exception, as shown below: (all ex's here use the
> 'non-determinate' connective =L, used before most nouns; transcription is
> phonemic):
>
> Examples in (1) show the most common type of transitive clause (here
> introduced by an AUX): the connective is morphosyntactically part of the
> noun phrase but phonologically attached to the previous word:
>
> (1) Yukw=t jap[-t]=L hanaq'=L kwila 'The woman is/was making
> the [traditional] cape/blanket'
> PROG.AUX=3ERG make[-3]=CONN woman=CONN blanket
>
> (1a) Yukw=t jap-t 'She is/was
> making it'
>
> (1aa) Yukw=t jap[-t]=L kwila 'She is/was making
> the blanket'
> (1ab) Yukw=t jap[-t]=L hanaq' 'The woman is/was
> making it'
>
> In (1aa) and (1ab), only the semantics (and, in speech, lesser stress on
> the subject) indicate whether the noun is subject or object (if there
> might be ambiguity, both nouns would be mentioned in the sentence, as in
> (1)).
>
> In (1b) the suffix appears in front of a following q (since only =s and =L
> cause it to delete), but the postclitic morpheme ==qat 'quotative,
> hearsay' loses its own final t before the following connective (but the
> deleting rule does not apply if the phoneme t is part of a previous
> word):
>
> 1b) Yukw=t jap-t==qa[t]=L hanaq'=L kwila 'I hear(d) that the woman is
> was making the blanket'
> ==hearsay
>
> 1c) Yukw=t jap-t==qat ''I hear(d) she was
> making it
>
>
> Examples in (2) illustrate another type of clause ("predicate-focused"),
> where the [t] is preserved to indicate the pronominal subject:
>
> (2) Jap-∂-[t]=L hanaq'=L kwila 'The woman MADE the
> blanket' (eg not bought it)
> make-NOMZ-[3] (lit The blanket is
> what the woman MADE, ... the woman's MAKING)
>
> (2a) Jap-∂-t 'She MADE it'
>
> Compare (2aa) and (2ab) with (1aa) and (1ab) above: here the suffix -t is
> preserved phonologically when the noun it refers to is not mentioned in
> the sentence:
>
> (2aa) Jap-∂-t=L kwila 'She MADE the
> blanket'
> (2ab) Jap-∂-[-t]=L hanaq' 'The woman MADE
> it'
>
> Only the grammatical difference, in this particular type of clause,
> justifies the phonological preservation of the suffix.
>
> (As in the (1) examples, addition of ==qat would make the -t appear in
> both sentences).
>
> From: paoram at unipv.it
> To: sashavovin at gmail.com; nathanwhill at gmail.com
> Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 12:18:31 +0100
> CC: histling-l at mailman.rice.edu
> Subject: Re: [Histling-l] conditioning of Uto-Aztecan *p in Nahuatl
>
>
>
>
> Nathan Hill wrote:
>
>
> “Dear Historical Linguists. [...]My
> neogrammarian heart tells me that sound changes are aware of phonetic
> environments only and not part of speech categories.”
> I have high respect for the Neogrammarians,
> but the statement above is a very strong one. It amounts to separate
> completely phonetics from grammar and syntax (or morphoyntax). If, say,
> a
> derivational suffix comes to modify the final part of a verbal root
> we can have a new basis in the word
> formation rule. For instance OGk. Nom. gàla “milk”, Genit.
> gàlak(t)os observes the rule that no OGk. word can end by a
> stop consonant. This induces the morphologically bound sound change –k >
> 0
> in the Nomin. A rule that does not apply to words such as galaktìzo
> “I’m breast-feeded”, galaktokòmos “shepherd” etc. .On
> its turn gala-, and not galak-,can be the basis form for compounds such
> as
> galathenòs “suckling child”.
>
> Best.
>
> Paolo
>
> °°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
> Prof.Paolo
> Ramat
> Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori (IUSS )
> Direttore del
> Centro "Lingue d'Europa: tipologia, storia e sociolinguistica"
> (LETiSS)
> Palazzo del Broletto - Piazza della Vittoria
>
> 27100
> Pavia
> tel. ++390382375811
> fax ++390382375899
>
>
>
>
> From: Alexander Vovin
> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 8:49 AM
> To: Nathan Hill
> Cc: histling-l
> Subject: Re: [Histling-l] conditioning of Uto-Aztecan *p in
> Nahuatl
>
> Dear
> Nathan,
>
> Very roughly speaking, but nouns and verbs behave very
> differently in this respect in Japanese. Even within the verbal paradigm,
> older
> grammaticalizations are different from more recent, although they can be
> traced
> to very similar phonological forms, e,g., the paradigmaic form of the verb
> yom-
> 'to
> count/read'
>
>
> Old Japanese Late Middle
> Japanese
> Modern
> Japanese
> perfective
> yo2mi1taru
> yomitaru
> yoNda
> desiderative
> _____
> yomitai
> yomitai
>
> Desiderative is much younger form than the perfective, and
> although both are essentially identical phonologically. they show two very
> different ref;exes in MJ.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Sasha
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:34 AM, Nathan Hill <nathanwhill at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Historical Linguists,
>
> In a paper about Tibetan I
> am criticizing someone for proposing that
> the same segment became one thing
> in nouns and another thing in verbs.
> My neogrammarian heart tells me that
> sound changes are aware of
> phonetic environments only and not part of
> speech categories. Such a
> thing is thus only possible if verbs are
> phonetically different than
> nouns in a systematic way (which is of course
> possible).
>
> Anyhow, a reviewer tells me that proto-Uto-Aztecan initial
> *p becomes
> zero in Nahuatl nouns but is preserved in verbs and cites the
> pair
> (.-tl "water" vs -p.ca "to
> wash"). The reviewer does not cite a
> discussion of this and I am totally at
> sea in the Uto-Aztecan
> literature. But, if this is an uncontroversial part
> of Uto-Aztecan
> historical phonology surely it has given rise to the
> same
> methodological concerns that I raise (sound change should
> apply
> blindly).
>
> I would be very grateful for any discussion of this
> or advice on
> treatments of this question in literature.
>
> with
> gratitude,
> Nathan
> _______________________________________________
> Histling-l
> mailing list
> Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu
> https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l
>
>
> --
>
> Alexander Vovin
> Professor of East Asian Languages
> and Literatures
> Department of East Asian Languages and
> Literatures
> University of Hawai'i at Manoa,
> USA
> ========================
> iustitiam magni facite, infirmos
> protegite
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Histling-l mailing
> list
> Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu
> https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l
>
>
>
>
>
> Questa informativa è inserita in automatico dal sistema al fine esclusivo
> della realizzazione dei fini istituzionali dell'ente.
> Diventa anche tu sponsor dei nostri ricercatori. Scegli di destinare il 5
> per mille all’Università di Pavia: offrirai nuove opportunità alla
> ricerca, ai giovani e al territorio. Un gesto che non costa nulla e
> costruisce tanto. C.F. dell’Università di Pavia 80007270186.
> Please note that the above message is addressed only to individuals filing
> Italian income tax returns.
> _______________________________________________
> Histling-l mailing list
> Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu
> https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l
> _______________________________________________
> Histling-l mailing list
> Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu
> https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l
>
_______________________________________________
Histling-l mailing list
Histling-l at mailman.rice.edu
https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l
More information about the Histling-l
mailing list