Possible phonological changes (was: Rate of change)

[R.S.Georg]

>And, if anyone can make any sense of the phonetic side of the change *s > *k
>mentioned above, I'd be glad to hear it...

Armenian has a somewhat similar development (although the details are
by far not as simple; I don't know them from the top of my head, so
please look it up).

In some New Indian languages, under the so-called ruki-rule, *s went
as far as (at least) /x/. The ruki-rule decrees that /s/, after /r/,
/u/, /k/, /i/ goes to /sh/ (in Iranian, and Indic /s-retrofl./.
Ah, yes, (I'm not fully awake yet), it holds in Slavic, too, where
the outcome, at least after /u/, is /x/, too  (ru. snoxa, lat. nurus,
skt. snuSa:, Gk. nuos).
The phonetic ratio, if any, has to do with retroflexion. If you
retroflect your tongue *a lot* when pronouncing, say, Sanskrit /S/
(s-subscript dot), the acoustic impression is already very close to
(velar, not uvular) /x/. IOW, /S/ and /x/ have quite adjacent places
of articulation. The whole process from /s/ to /x/ is, thus,
describable as a gradual movement of place of articulation. OK, in
the end /x/ has to lose its friction to turn into the stop /k/, but
then you have it.
In early European writings on things Indian, I encountered the term
/upaniSad/ rendered as <Oup'nekhad>  (I think it was in Schopenhauer,
but he certainly got it from someone else); the ultimate source of
this impressionistic notation may have been Bengali Brahmin
pronunciation of Sanskrit, but I'm not so sure about that.

Stefan
--
Dr. Stefan Georg
Heerstrassse 7
53111 Bonn

Vakroep Vergelijkende Taalwetenschappen
Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden