1 / 15

Diachronic Phonotactic Development in Latin

Diachronic Phonotactic Development in Latin. The Work of Syllable Structure or Linear Sequence? Ranjan Sen University of Oxford. Phonotactics: Two Approaches. Syllable Approach. Linear Approach. Range of contrasts in an environment attributed to position within syllable.

Olivia
Télécharger la présentation

Diachronic Phonotactic Development in Latin

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Diachronic Phonotactic Development in Latin The Work of Syllable Structure or Linear Sequence? Ranjan Sen University of Oxford

  2. Phonotactics: Two Approaches Syllable Approach Linear Approach • Range of contrasts in an environment attributed to position within syllable • Range of contrasts in an environment attributed to linear segmental sequence alone Which approach tackles best the diachronic phonotactic development seen in the history of Latin?

  3. Phonotactic Relevance of the Syllable in Latin • Notions “well-formed onset” and “well-formed coda” required in syllabification • ONSET • C: any • CC: stop (or /f/) + liquid • s- extrasyllabic • CODA • C: any • CC: sonorant + voiceless stop • -s extrasyllabic • Word-based Syllable Hypothesis : iːn.síg.nis ‘notable’ supported by accent-placement, but /g/ not found word-finally, whereas /gn/ found word-initially (gnaːrus ‘having knowledge of’)

  4. Voice Assimilation • Regular regressive assimilation in biconsonantal sequences (C1C2) • Stop + stop: *scriːb-to-s > scriːptus ‘written’, obtinuiː ‘I obtained’ = [pt], e.g. optinvi • Stop + fricative: *nuːbsiː > nuːpsiː ‘I married’ • Fricative + stop: *is-dem > *izdem > iːdem‘same’ • Every obstruent in a consonantal sequence agrees in voice regardless of syllabification • Regardless of syllabification: plebs ‘people’ = [pleps]

  5. Place and Frication = regressive place and frication assimilation The Place Hierarchy: Dorsal > Labial > Coronal Stop C1 lower than or level with C2 on hierarchy assimilates to C2 in place and frication Syllable Approach: “codas stops unspecified for coronal place regardless of the environment, and labial place if followed by dorsal stop”  clearly unsatisfactory: no motivation for recourse to syllabic position – linear sequence is necessary and sufficient

  6. Manner The Manner Hierarchy: (for place assimilation) Fricative > Stop > Nasal • Fricative C1 • before fricative C2 only • obeying Place Hierarchy • *disfacilis > difficilis ‘difficult’ • Stop C1 • before C2 of any manner • obeying Place Hierarchy • *quidpe > quippe ‘for’; adferoː > afferoː ‘I deliver’, *kaidmentom > cae(m)mentum ‘rubble’ • Nasal C1 • before any obstruent C2 regardless of Place Hierarchy • before nasal C1 obeying Place Hierarchy • *kemtom > centum ‘hundred’, *in-maneoː > immineoː‘I overhang; threaten’ vs. autumnus ‘autumn’

  7. Nasality = no nasal or place assimilation = regressive nasal assimilation • Nasal C2 nasalises stop C1, which also assimilates in place to C2 obeying Place Hierarchy • Exception: failure of nasal assimilation in Dor + /m/ • Again, Syllable Approach unsatisfactory • Better starting-point: linear configuration Dor + /m/ • Cf. early epenthesis: Greek dráchma drac(h)uma ‘Greek coin’, tegmen > tegimen/tegumen ‘covering’ = regressive nasal and place assimilation

  8. Hypothesis – Linear Sequence Feature x, if poorly cued relative to adjacent more robustly cued feature, is neutralised and assimilated to adjacent more robustly cued feature • External cue: release into vowel, thus C2 features usually more robustly cued than C1 features • Internal cue: Place Hierarchy – Dor > Lab > Cor • Internal cue: Manner Hierarchy for place feature – Fricative > Stop > Nasal

  9. Scale for occurrence of contrasts More contrasts Fewer contrasts

  10. Sonorant Voice: A Problem Sonorants appear before C2 of any voice specification comparoː : combiboːverpa : verbum sonorants unspecified for voice pre-consonantally Nasal C2 triggers voicing of C1: *sekmentom > segmentum nasals voice-specified pre-vocalically Liquid C2 allows voice contrast in C1: capra :criːbrum liquids unspecified for voice pre-vocalically BUT /s/ > [z] post-vocalically before voiced consonant, including liquids: *preslom > [prezlom] > preːlum liquids voice-specified pre-vocalically??

  11. Sonorant Voice Specification • Voicing of /r/ at early stage • Early merger in Latin of /sr/ and [ðr] inherited from Proto-Italic:*fuːnesris > fuːnebris ‘funereal’ • Voiced epenthetic stop before /r/ vs. voiceless epenthetic stop before /l, n/:*gheimrinos > *heimbrinos > hiːbernus ‘wintry’ vs. *exemlom > exemplum ‘example’, autumnus > autumpnus ‘autumn’ • /l,m,n/ became voice-specified later (in archaic period) • /s/ before /l,m,n/ > [z] (with consequent loss of [z] + compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel):*preslom > preːlum ‘wine-/oil-press’, cosmis > coːmis ‘friendly’, *casnos > caːnus ‘white(-haired)’  voice-specified? capra vs. criːbrum?

  12. Return of the Syllable: TR Onsets Phonetically based: incline vs. ink-like Why does liquid C2 allow preceding voice contrast if voice-specified?  Unspecified if in stop + liquid onset (not σ-initial) • Divergent syllabifications of identical sequence: • *po.plos >populus ‘people’ • *pop.li.kos > poblikos > puːblicus ‘public’

  13. Morphological Pressures

  14. Diachronic Phonotactic Development in Latin Ranjan Sen Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics University of Oxford, U.K. ranjan.sen@ling-phil.ox.ac.uk

More Related