[Histling-l] excrescence by regular rule?

[Matthieu Segui]

Sorry everybody, I have to correct myself: the sequence involved needed not
be posttonic, it could also be pretonic, as shown by the SIMUL'ARE example
(where stress is on the penultimate vowel), and in such a case, of course,
the vowel which eventually got deleted never was the penultimate vowel of
the word.
The bottom line is that the vowel which got deleted in those sequences
wasn't stressed (nor was it the initial or final vowel of the word).

Matthieu

_ _
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__uni-2Dfrankfurt.academia.edu_MatthieuSegui&d=DwIFaQ&c=cjytLXgP8ixuoHflwc-poQ&r=xWgwnXzyLjTDtEN1jkc-sliD_cd49k7fc7XSMi_8aeo&m=RyedCJeAJj6Q40UqcTGBbpkIIKVY2smyV91bGklvH7U&s=FtJYfmIgqYnVXSzz57r5vjmuVPGcd6wo-VKZtS8d7K8&e= 
Skype: matthieu.segui

2017-09-13 22:19 GMT+02:00 Matthieu Segui <matthieu.segui2014 at gmail.com>:

> Dear Martha,
> As far as the evolution from Protoromance (or Spoken Latin) to Old French
> is concerned, basically everyone (see for instance Heinrich Lausberg, *Romanische
> Sprachwissenschaft*, vol.1, §513) agrees that in all instances of the
> posttonic (but non-final) sequences
> *[mV.r], *[nV.r], *[ssV.r], *[mV.l] and *[nV.l]
> (where the always unstressed vowel, as a matter of fact, was the
> penultimate vowel of the word), a plosive consonant (homorganic to the
> first consonant of the sequence) was inserted after the vowel underwent
> deletion, giving rise to the following clusters (in Old French):
> *[m.br], *[n.dr], *[s.tr], *[m.bl] and *[n.ɡl]
> Examples include
> NUMERU > *nombre* ('number')
> CINERE > *cendre* ('ash')
> ESSERE > *estre* ('(to) be')
> SIMULARE > *sembler* ('(to) seem')
> SPINULA > *espingle* ('pin')                       (Lausberg's examples)
> This is a fully regular pattern. Now of course the question is: did this
> change occur *immediately* after or *some time* after the vowel got
> deleted? If it occurred immediately after (in other words concomitant with)
> vowel syncope, then this change might not be interesting for you, since
> under this hypothesis the two original consonants of the sequence never
> actually came into contact. If instead the consonant insertion occurred
> some time after vowel deletion took place, then it may qualify as one of
> those cases you're looking for.
>
> Best wishes,
> Matthieu
>
> _ _
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__uni-2Dfrankfurt.academia.edu_MatthieuSegui&d=DwIFaQ&c=cjytLXgP8ixuoHflwc-poQ&r=xWgwnXzyLjTDtEN1jkc-sliD_cd49k7fc7XSMi_8aeo&m=RyedCJeAJj6Q40UqcTGBbpkIIKVY2smyV91bGklvH7U&s=FtJYfmIgqYnVXSzz57r5vjmuVPGcd6wo-VKZtS8d7K8&e= 
> Skype: matthieu.segui
>
> 2017-09-13 20:46 GMT+02:00 Martha Ratliff <ac6000 at wayne.edu>:
>
>> Does anyone know of a reconstruction in which someone has posited a
>> regular change involving insertion of a consonant between two other
>> consonants?  I had always thought of excrescence as a sound change that
>> operates on individual words in an unpredictable fashion (that is, the
>> low-level transitional consonant is phonologized unpredictably), but am
>> wondering if there are cases where someone believes it to have operated in
>> a regular, rule-governed fashion to an entire set of words.
>>
>> I am especially interested in insertions of the “thim*b*le”/“hom*b*re”
>> type, but would be interested in examples of the “Ham*p*shire” type as
>> well.
>>
>> Many thanks in advance!
>>
>> Martha Ratliff
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> histling-l mailing list
>> histling-l at mailman.yale.edu
>> http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/histling-l
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/pipermail/histling-l/attachments/20170913/02ce6b08/attachment-0001.html