conuly | Interesting linguistics post, all about the r/s thing.

indeed, rex/regis was one of the other examples cited in that class. i think that the r/s thing actually goes all the way back to proto indo-european, not just proto-germanic, but i wasn't 100% sure, so i said proto-germanic to be safe.

Also, ever wonder about why all of the infinitive endings in Latin VOWELre? Except for esse? Yup, same thing.

eh, i meant to say "... in Latin are VOWELre." Interestingly enough, the accidentally ommited word is also of the form VOWELre.

Now I want to recite latin verbs. DAMN YOU!

eh, it might also be helpful to add that rex/regis was an example cited for a completely different phonological change. because it really has nothing to do with the r/s thing. :)

Though it'd be really cool if you could explain it as the same change...

Really interesting. It seems strange that /r/ and /s/ could ever have been allophones of each other, though. The /r/ phoneme is a liquid and is voiced; the /s/ phoeneme is a fricative and is not voiced. The only similarity is that they're both alveolar.... The pronuncation of the letter "r" and/or the letter "s" must have changed drastically since then.

It's possible that the s between vowels was voiced, making it more like a z. Then the r would be much closer in pronunciation to it.

You know, some people say that h and ng are allophones in english...

An 's' that is voiced is a /z/. :) But that's probably what you meant. And yes, that would make sense.... Also, it's possible that the 'r' was pronounced with a roll, as a fricative, the way it's pronounced in some languages - and that would be very similar to a /z/. Is there some way to find out how our current letters were pronounced in those long-ago languages, or is it generally unknown?

(And just out of curiosity, how/why are you interested in linguistics? I have an excuse :D - I plan to become a Speech Pathologist, and my major now (I'm in my senior year of Undergrad) is in Speech.)

I'm replying to both of these together. The h/ng thing was a joke, because one only occurs initially and the other NEVER occurs initially, so you can say that they're allophones of the same phoneme. If you're crazy.

There's no way to ever find out for sure how our current sounds were pronounced in dead languages (unless the speakers of those languages kindly left us linguistic notes - that's how we reconstructed the pronunciation of classical latin) but we can make some educated guesses based on their descendents. By educated I mean "slightly less wild than rolling a die".

I'm interested in linguistics for a few different reasons. 1. I got interested in phonology when I had to have speech lessons as a kid. 2. I got interested in dialects when most of the books I read were set in Britian. 3. I got interested in conlanging when I found out about esperanto. Mix 'em and I have a profound interest in linguistics.

And about the /h/ and /ng/: I can definitely understand that, but not across the board; only in certain dialects where the /h/ is pronounced very nasally.

Very possible! Compare with Dutch:

English: lose/lost/lost
German: verlieren/verlor/verloren
Dutch: verliezen/verloor/verloor

They still have it as a z!

Eh, reposted because I used BB code instead of HTML -_-

And still missing the u.

Or as my throughly grammer school educated housemate likes to put it. "The current American administration has forgotten everythin gaobut honour and valour. including how to spell them"

Hurrm.. latin roots are very fun.

But Latin never had the u in those words. Those Us are a result of French bastardization. We simply returned to the older, more correct forms.

That would be my point about fun latin roots..

I like kicking his private school educated ass in arguements.