Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Isn't there some law in linguistics that says words tend to evolve toward whatever is (Original Post) raccoon May 2012 OP
Not a named one, as far as I know. Igel May 2012 #1
Language change is a battle between laziness and comprehensibility. Odin2005 May 2012 #2
I thought the future in Romance languages was formed by a fusion of to go (eo) Starboard Tack Jun 2012 #3
Nope, it's from Habere. Odin2005 Jun 2012 #4
Interesting Starboard Tack Jun 2012 #5
Spam deleted by Paulie (MIR Team) ghjfhgf Sep 2012 #6
Spam deleted by Paulie (MIR Team) ghjfhgf Sep 2012 #7

Igel

(36,164 posts)
1. Not a named one, as far as I know.
Thu May 3, 2012, 05:44 PM
May 2012

It's a mixed bag.

Frequent, common words that are long tend to be pronounced quickly. Quick pronunciations tend to lose distinctions in consonants and vowels, they tend to be clipped or the consonants weakened. "Fast" and "easy to pronounce" are usually the same.

This is an old generalization. Bybee's notion of token-based phonology (which means a token-based kind of language acquisition) provides a way of implementing this kind of change.

This doesn't work with some very short, grammatically essential words, IIRC. If you need them, you don't reduce them beyond some minimum.

Oddball words and words that signal high-style tend to be preserved. In many cases we find ways to make "formal" mean "more syllables" by adding additional endings or finding larger expressions to merge them with.

That's at the word level.

At the level of the sound system, mergers happen at the expense of distinctions (this is one of Bartoli's norms and while it's a universal tendency it obviously isn't the whole story). For example, t/d merge in flapping. /a/ and "open o" (Don, dawn) are pretty much merged in American English.

It's also the case that consonants more often undergo lenition--weakening, in a sense--than strengthening or "fortition." Not all consonants are equally subject to lenition. Consider how AAVE "bad" and "bat" are often pronounced with an unreleased or even absent final consonant. Spanish /d/ is probably best seen as an interdental voiced fricative.

Odin2005

(53,521 posts)
2. Language change is a battle between laziness and comprehensibility.
Sun May 6, 2012, 06:19 PM
May 2012

Laziness causes sound changes that destroy grammatical word endings. the need for comprehensibility leads to the creation of new function words (Like English's helper verbs and prepositions) and then laziness turns the function words into new word endings.

An example is the Future Tense in most Romance languages, which originated out of a fusion of the infinitive and the present form of "have" in late Latin

So Latin amare habeo became Spanish amaré, "I will love you". Notice how the stress in the Spanish verb is on the word ending that developed from "habeo".

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
3. I thought the future in Romance languages was formed by a fusion of to go (eo)
Fri Jun 1, 2012, 09:47 PM
Jun 2012

and the infinitive. "I am going to love you"

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
5. Interesting
Sat Jun 2, 2012, 01:44 PM
Jun 2012

And yet in all Romance languages and English we use the present tense go with the infinitive to imply future tense.

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Languages and Linguistics»Isn't there some law in l...