Re: /e/ before /r/

From: Aaron J. Dinkin (dinkin_at_babel.ling.upenn.edu)
Date: 06/19/04 

Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 18:24:10 +0000 (UTC)

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:30:36 GMT, Bob Cunningham <exw6sxq@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 15:22:51 +0000 (UTC), "Aaron J. Dinkin"
><dinkin@babel.ling.upenn.edu> said:
>
>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 09:01:47 GMT, Bob Cunningham <exw6sxq@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> > On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 01:47:41 +0000 (UTC), "Aaron J. Dinkin"
>> ><dinkin@babel.ling.upenn.edu> said:
>
>> >> In your mental representation of your vocabulary, the element "hymn" is
>> >> associated with a string of phonological segments that looks something
>> >> like /hImn/, with the /n/ included - this is the underlying form. When
>> >> related words are constructed out of that element - "hymn", "hymnal",
>> >> "hymnography" - that string is the one that goes into the
>> >> operation, which typically adds another string of segments to the
>> >> initial one: /&l/ or /Agr&fi/ or something.
>
>> > You seem to be implying that "hymnography" and "hymnal" were
>> > formed in English on the English word "hymn". They are both
>> > from derivatives that were formed in Greek or Latin on
>> > "hymnos" or "hymnus".
>
>> That's the etymology of them, true; but the naive native speaker has no
>> way of knowing that. All the naive native speaker knows is that "hymn",
>> "hymnography", and "hymnal" are all English words, and that they're
>> related by the fact that they all contain the element "hymn".
>
> Okay, I have no problem understanding what you're saying,
> but I don't know why it's significant. My interest in this
> thread has grown out of disbelief that words like "columnar"
> and "autumnal" are fossils. What the ordinary English
> speaker senses has nothing to do with that.

I confess to a certain amount of uncertainly regarding exactly what you
mean by "fossil". You're going to have to explain in greater detail
exactly what you intend to mean by saying a word is or isn't a fossil
before I feel myself able to address this point.

> You are apparently interested in some different aspect of
> the matter.

I was interested in answering Donna's question on what is meant by
"underlying form" in the study of phonology.

> Brian Scott has said that "autumnal" and "columnar" are
> fossils, so he would presumably say that "hymnography" is a
> fossil. Do you agree with that?

If that's the case, then I suppose so. But see above regarding "fossil".

>> Furthermore, the point stands if we apply it to a word that we know was
>> formed in English on the English word "hymn" because I just made it up:
>> "hymnoscopy". I have know way of knowing if there's any Latin or Greek

I am clearly having a bad day. That should be "no way of knowing...".

>> word that resembles it; I constructed it out of the English element
>> "hymn" and the English element "-oscopy" that is found in "endoscopy",
>> "spectroscopy", and so forth. And in "hymnoscopy" the /n/ would be
>> pronounced.
>
> But in constructing "hymnoscopy" you had to be aware of
> other English words formed from English words spelled with
> "-mn" and of the fact that the "n" was pronounced in their
> derivatives.

Not necessarily: I only had to be aware that the "n" was pronounced in
other derivatives of "hymn". (And this is arguably equivalent to knowing
that "hymn" has an underlying /n/.) I don't think knowing that the "n" is
pronounced in derivatives of "damn" and "column" was necessary to produce
this.

However, it's intriguing to ask what would happen if someone tried to
construct novel words based on a stem ending in (orthographic) "-mn" that
didn't already have any relevant derivatives - would the "n" be pronounced
by analogy with "-mn" words that do have derivatives or not?

Hmmm... suppose I asked you to put the suffix "-ence", as in "reference"
or "abstinence", onto "contemn", which (unlike "hymn" or "damn") doesn't
seem to have extant derivatives in English with a pronounced /n/. How
would you say it?

> If you hadn't known those things, you probably would have coined
> "hymoscopy".

Yes. And I think this a fault with the theory: knowing the underlying
form of a simple word, is in essence contingent on knowing the surface
forms of more obscure and learned words. So as your vocabulary grows, you
have to go back and revise the underlying forms of words you already
thought you knew.

> Having constructed "hymnoscopy", would you say that it is in
> any sense fossilized? Brian Scott said "hymnal" was
> fossilized when he was assuming it had been formed in
> English from the English word "hymn", so he would presumably
> say that "hymnoscopy" is fossilized.

See above.

-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom

Relevant Pages

  • Not about /e/ before anything [was: Re: /e/ before /r/]
    ... English consistently handles derivatives of ... prepared to say that any English word, ... He may tell us next that "cat" is a fossil, ... > It's time we heard from Brian again, ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: John Gabriels Average Tangent Theorem
    ... >> a statement about derivatives? ... > - You say if it is his definition, then it's incoherent. ... >> lines do not have gradients. ... So you are very incorrect saying this. ...
    (sci.math)
  • chickens are roosting
    ... were saying the housing market ... is overpriced and will collapse, derivatives are financial ...
    (sci.research.careers)
  • Re: Derivative of exponential function
    ... > finish up on limits, so that we can start differentiation. ... > depends upon already knowing the nth derivatives of e^x, ... > e^x, but upon examination, that was all based on knowing things about ... by the power series and as the inverse function to the natural ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Derivative of exponential function
    ... > finish up on limits, so that we can start differentiation. ... > depends upon already knowing the nth derivatives of e^x, ... > e^x, but upon examination, that was all based on knowing things about ...
    (sci.math)