1 / 17

Example Historical Linguistics Problems

tad
Download Presentation

Example Historical Linguistics Problems

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. Example Historical Linguistics Problems comparative reconstruction

    3. instructions: establish sound correspondences for the sets of cognates. reconstruct the proto-form for each word. list the changes that occurred for each language. discuss the changes you propose, why is your hypothesis better than other possible ones?

    4. key sound correspondences 1, 4: y~y 2, 3: ?~y Hypothesis A: the proto-language had only /y/, which changed to / ?/ in castilian in some circumstances. Hypothesis B: the proto-language had both / ?/ and /y/. The sound / ?/ changed to /y/ in all contexts in Andalusian.

    5. Discussion. If we adopt hypothesis A, we have to explain where, or in which contexts the change occurred. In particular, we have to explain why /y/ would have changed to /?/ in /po?o/, but not in /poyo// If we adopt hypothesis B, we can explain all of the data without saying anything else. As a result, this is the preferable hypothesis.

    6. 5, 9, 8: s~s 6, 7, 10, 11: ?~s

    7. Reconstructed forms: mayo ka?e po?o poyo dos die? ?i?ko si kasa ka?a ?i�ili?a?ion

    8. Changes from proto-language All changes occurred to Andalusian: ? ? y ? ? s

    11. Archaic Romance

    13. Reconstructed forms: 1. filu (see discussion) 2. bita 3. binu 4. ripa or riba (see discussion) 5. riu 6. rizu (see discussion) 7. muta

    14. Discussion of Problematic Examples: Examples 1, 4, 5, 6: [ l ] or [r ]? Hypothesis A: proto-form: *r > l in Spanish, Sardinian, no change in Rumanian. problem: rio, riu, riu Hypothesis A predicts these forms should contain [ l ], or, there was some other change, for which we have no data. Hypothesis B: proto-form: *l > r in Rumanian, no change in Spanish, Sardinian we can reconstruct *r as the proto-form for rio, riu, riu and exx 5, 6. Conclusion: Hypothesis B is better.

    15. Examples 2 & 3, 4. [b], [v], or [p]? First consider exx 2 & 3 bino binu vin bi�a bita vita Hypothesis C: proto-form: *b > v in Rumanian, no change elsewhere. Hypothesis D: proto-form = *v > b in Spanish, Sardinian. problem: why did Spanish and Sardinian undergo the same change? Can example 4 help us decide this question?

    16. riva riba ripa if we adopt hypothesis C, then proto-form for this example can not be [b], or we predict Span riba, Rum. riva. proto-form can be [p]. *p > b in Sard., *p > v in Spanish. proto-form can be [v]. *v > b in Sard., *v > p in Rumanian. problem: [p] is voiceless stop, [v] is voiced fricative, seems like two changes have to occur to get from [p] to [v] (or vice versa).

    17. if we adopt hypothesis D, then� proto-from can not be [v], this predicts Spanish: riba. proto-form can be [b], *b > v in Spanish, *b > p in Rumanian. This would be a nice solution, since one change in each langauge is sufficient. But, this leaves the original problem, how did the same change happen in two langauges? proto-from can be [p], *p > b, *p > v (this leaves the two-step problem).

    18. Solution? Adopt hypothesis C *b > v in Rumanian, no change elsewhere. other changes: *p > b in Sard., *p > v in Spanish. problem: two steps from [p] to [v]. Adopt hypothesis D: *v > b in Spanish, Sardinian. *b > v in Spanish, *b > p in Rumanian. problem: same change happened in Spanish and Sardinian

More Related