phonolchange

phonolchange - 2. Partial merger (/f/ already existed by...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Phonological Change Problem (Be careful if you print this out! Answer is given below after a space.) Describe the changes in the phonological system produced by each of the following phonetic changes, first in structuralist, then in generative terms. Proto-Italic had a set of voiceless unaspirated stops /p/, /t/, /k/; voiced stops /b/, /d/, /g/; and voiceless aspirated stops /p h /, /t h /, /k h /. It also had a fricative /s/. It had no other stops or fricatives. 1. Voiceless aspirated stops became voiceless fricatives (e.g. *p h er ō > fer ō ‘I carry’, *rut h ro- > ru θ ro- ‘red’, *t h ē k ī > * θē k ī ‘I put, made’) 2. In Latin θ > f next to u (e.g. *ru θ ro- > *rufro- ‘red’) 3. In Latin all voiceless fricatives became voiced stops between voiced sounds (e.g. *rufro- > ruber ‘red’, *kon- θō > cond ō ‘I put together’) 4. In Latin θ > f (e.g. * θē k ī > f ē c ī ‘I made’)
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Solution: Structuralist: 1. Non-phonemic (new phonetic realization)
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 2. Partial merger (/f/ already existed by the preceding change) 3. Partial merger 4. Complete merger Generative: 1. Restructuring 2. Restructuring or rule addition (I gave you no synchronic allomorphic alternations) 3. Rule addition (it seems likely that the simple & compound forms of put, e.g., would be enough to give speakers a basis for a synchronic rule). Note that if you added a rule in step 2, it could still exist. You would simply have to order the two rules. 4. Restructuring (of morphemes with / / either to /f/ or to /d/). Loss of the rule added in step 3. I admit that if you make the rule in 3 apply to all voiceless fricatives, then the change in step 4 gets very complicated, since its not immediately clear what happens to the rule for the fricatives other than / /. If you added a rule in step 2, it surely has been lost in step 4....
View Full Document

Page1 / 2

phonolchange - 2. Partial merger (/f/ already existed by...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online