reversal of merger

[Miguel Carrasquer Vidal]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Larry Trask <larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk> wrote:
 
>Michelena therefore draws the following conclusions.
>
>(1) The devoiced /j/ genuinely did merge completely with the inherited
><x> in Gipuzkoan.
>
>(2) However, when the backing of <x> was introduced, speakers were
>readily able to distinguish instances of <x> bearing expressive value
>from instances of <x> lacking such expressive value.  They therefore
>backed *only* the second group, while leaving the first unaffected.
>But <gajo> and <gizarajo>, in spite of their etymology, underwent
>backing because speakers no longer perceived their <x> as having
>expressive value.
>
>So: there was an unconditioned merger, but the merger was later
>reversed, because just one of the two original segments undergoing the
>merger possessed a distinctive phonological role in the language,
>allowing speakers to distinguish the merged segments in all but a
>couple of cases.
>
>That's the story.  I like it.
 
I like it too, but I like it slightly better reformulated as follows.
What do you think?
 
(1) The devoiced /j/ genuinely did merge completely with the inherited
<x> in Gipuzkoan.
 
(2) When the backing of <x> was introduced, *all* instances were
affected in principle, but those instances of <x> bearing expressive
value were re-palatalized back to /S/.  However, <gajo> and
<gizarajo>, in spite of their etymology, did not undergo
"re-palatalization" because speakers no longer perceived their <x> as
having expressive value.
 
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv at wxs.nl
Amsterdam