Are there impossible changes? θ > f but f ≯ θ

Abstract

One question that historical phonology should reasonably seek to answer is: are there impossible changes? That is: are there plausible changes that we could reasonably expect to occur in the diachrony of languages' phonologies, but which nonetheless do not ever occur? In this paper I seek to spell out what it really means to consider this question and what we need to do in order to answer it for any specific case. This will require a consideration of some fundamental issues in historical phonology, including the distinction between exceptionless and lexically-specific/sporadic changes (which I call 'N-changes' and 'A-changes'), and the connection between that distinction and the 'misperception' model of phonological change. It will involve an analysis of aspects of the phonological history of Pulo Annian, Arabic, Italic, Spanish and several varieties of English. I argue that the current state of evidence indicates that there are indeed impossible changes (which I symbolise using 'x ≯ y' to represent that 'x cannot change into y') in a very specific but phonologically real way, and that f ≯ θ is one. 14 The basic observation is much older. Ohala points back to Sweet (1888), who discusses "[s]uch isolative changes as to and to " under the heading of 'acoustic changes' (1888, 43), showing an awareness of the acoustic similarity of the sounds, and the implication that this similarity can drive such changes. Sweet is using his revised version of Bell's (1867) 'Visible Speech', in which = θ, = f, = ɾ, = ʀ. SOUND NOTATIOX. BY HIENBY swmm, M.A. 215 might be written n k , QJW. I might be written in the slurred pronunciation of aguind-Iabsu. The other glide-vowels being simply the full vowel symbols shortened, do not require to be enumerated. CONSONANTS. o (q) throat(-open-breath). orn=habic Aha (?). e (a) throat-voice. w=Dan. r. ofn=Arabic uifj (3). x (;) throat-stop (glottal catch). D a s h ' stijdtone.' c (x) back. Sc. and Germ. M. 6 (a) back-voice. ?diddle Germ. tage. o(f)=Germ. r. o (9) front. Sc. hue. Germ. kh. 01 Germ. siichtig. m~ o (j) front-voice. E. yes. o (r) point. oi=IceL hr. (D (r) point-voice. E. red. w=&. red. <o\ Ruse. d. The Sw. 'thick' I (Hb. p. 214, Storm, p. 24) may be symbolized by WH, implying an attempt to combine oc and a. The Japanese c (Hb. 244) is co)(o. s (a) blade. E. hiss. SI is apparently the German a in steia. $1 Russ. ai. sc Sw. b r s. s (2) blade-voice. E. is. t (j). blade-point. E. @h. 2) Germ. &la. t\ Polish 9, Norw. sjleZ (Storm, p. 43). c (3) blade-point-voice. E. Illeaeure. v (p) point-teeth. E. thh. w @) point-teeth-voice. E. then. w\ Dan. gud. 3 (+) lip. 3 (6) lip-voice. > (f) lipteeth. 3 (v) lip-teeth-voice. E (4) back-divided. 8 (t) back-divided-voice. o (I) front-divided. co (Z) front-divided-voice. Italian gl. South Sw. depp. Romaic Ip (-2). Middle and South Germ. W. >\ RUES. krod. Ruseian and Polish guttural L SOUND NOTATIOX. BY HIENBY swmm, M.A. 215 might be written n k , QJW. I might be written in the slurred pronunciation of aguind-Iabsu. The other glide-vowels being simpl...

A different path to [f]: labiodentalization in Faifi Arabic

“…The labiodental /f/ would have been the closest phonemic match perceptually to voiceless [ɬ]. The path to labiodentalization in Upper FA documented in this paper raises several issues for the general discussion on labiodentalization that has emanated from the work of Honeybone (2016). Two specific issues to be addressed in this section include Upper Faifi Arabic representing a case of labiodentalization whose source is not an interdental and labiodentalization as an endogenous (system-internal) regular N-change that has misperception as its underpinnings.…”

“…As Blevins (2006:12) states, referencing Miller & Nicely (1955), "…the highest confusion rates for English adults are found between [θ] and [f] and [ð] and [v]…". While this perceptual basis of labiodentalization of interdentals seems clear, Honeybone (2016) suggests that the explanation for labiodentalization as rooted in misperception is inconsistent with labiodentalization as an unconditioned (non-sporadic) change. As Honeybone notes, the change of interdentals to labiodentals is unidirectional: θ > f as an unconditioned change (or "N-change" in Honeybone's terminology) is attested, but the reverse whereby labiodentals become interdentals is not attested as an N-change.…”

“…This process of labiodentalization, which affects interdentals such as [θ] > [f], is found in English and Scots dialects and various other languages. Both Blevins (2006) and Honeybone (2016) discuss this type of sound change and provide examples where interdentals have become /f/. As Honeybone reports, the sound change of interdentals to labiodentals has been attested in some Arabic dialects as both a sporadic change and an unconditioned change.…”

“…With unconditioned sound changes like that shown in (1), an important issue that is discussed by Honeybone (2016) is whether an unconditioned change is endogenous (i.e. internally motivated by system-internal pressures within the language itself) or exogenous (i.e.…”

“…This underwent devoicing (and depharyngealization) in root-initial position and is the source of the subsequent labiodentalization of the root-initial segment. Section 6 relates our proposal regarding Faifi Arabic labiodentalization to the general literature on labiodentalization, but specifically focusing on the work of Honeybone (2016). Section 7 concludes the paper.…”