r and s

[Paul J Hopper]

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
On Sheila Watts' query about s/r alternations in Germanic and Latin
(so-called rhotacism): I can't think of other examples of it outside
these two groups, but the two processes were the results of independent
changes s > z, followed by z > r and a lot of analogical restoration or
generalization of the original s. The environments for s > z are a bit
different, since in Latin it occurred between vowels regardless of
accent. The oldest Germanic documents still have the original sibilant.
z > r doesn't seem to be a commonly attested change, and it is an
interesting coincidence that it should occur independently in two
families often seen as quite close within Indo-European. I don't have my
copy of C D Buck's Comparative Grammar of Latin and Greek with me here,
but I'm sure there's a good clear presentation of the Latin situation
there, and E Prokosch, A Comparative Germanic Grammar would be a good
place to go for the Germanic details.
 
Paul Hopper
Thomas S. Baker Professor of English & Linguistics
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh
PA 15213, USA
 
 
Excerpts from mail: 23-Oct-98 r and s by Sheila Watts at cus.cam.ac.
> ----------------------
> Hullo everyone,
> Could anyone help me with the answer to a small question which has been
> interesting me for some time?
> There are alternations between r and s in different parts of the paradigm
> of some Latin words (only verbs?), and these are apparent in borrowings
> into English such as adhere vs. adhesive, adhesion. Now these alternations
> are similar to those found as a result of the operation of Verner's Law in
> words like English was - were, German war - gewesen, kiesen - kor and so
> on.
> Is there a link, or is this phenomenon typologically common?
> Thank you,