Restoration

Discussion of natural languages, or language in general.
User avatar
ObsequiousNewt
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 434
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 5:05 pm
Location: /ˈaɪ̯əwʌ/

Restoration

Post by ObsequiousNewt »

I recently found myself wondering: what language has restored the most features of its ancestor?

For the purposes of this question I've left the exact definition vague, but in general I'm looking for e.g.: a phoneme, element of morphosyntax, or particular construction that was lost and then regained; a sound change that was reverted (either in whole or in part); etc. I'm less interested in words that were restored by analogy, or words borrowed from the parent language, unless these are particularly interesting/relevant to the question.

For example, here are some things that English has done:

* Lost and then restored five out of six (late) PIE diphthongs: /ei/, /ou/ (lost in PGmc, restored by the GVS); /ai/, /au/ (lost in OE, restored by the GVS), /oi/ (lost in PGmc, restored in OE by palatalization)
* Lost the distinction between /a/ and /o/, then restored it.
* Lost /æ/ in Middle English, then restored it.
* Lost /z/ in OE, then restored it in ME.
* Raised /a/ to /æ/ in Proto-OE, then restored it before a back vowel.
* Raised /eu/ to /iu/ in PGmc, then lowered it in OE (io > eo).

There are probably others which I can't remember off the top of my head.


Ο ορανς τα ανα̨ριθομον ϝερρον εͱεν ανθροποτροφον.
Το̨ ανθροπς αυ̨τ εκψον επ αθο̨ οραναμο̨ϝον.
Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν.

Travis B.
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 3570
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Location: Milwaukee, US

Re: Restoration

Post by Travis B. »

OHG onset f > MHG v > NHG f
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.

zompist
Boardlord
Boardlord
Posts: 3368
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 8:26 pm
Location: In the den
Contact:

Re: Restoration

Post by zompist »

More for English:

* (with the rest of Germanic) Lost separate IE perfect & aorist; redeveloped the perfect using an auxiliary
* lost singular 'thou'; many dialects have redeveloped a s/pl distinction

User avatar
Pole, the
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1606
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:50 am

Re: Restoration

Post by Pole, the »

Polish:
· lost /kʲ ɡʲ/ (PIE *ḱ *ǵ → PBSl *ś *ź), then regained them (from PSl *k *g before front vowels)
· lost /ɕ ʑ/ (PBSl *ś *ź → PSl *s *z), then regained them (from PSl *s *z before front vowels)
· lost /ʂ/ (from the ruki law; → PSl *x), then regained it (from PSl *š)
· lost the distinction between /a/ and /o/ (late PIE), then regained it (PSl *a ← *ā *ō; PSl. *o ← *a *o)
· lost the vowel length (PSl), then regained it (Old Polish), then lost it again (Modern Polish)
· merged the two nasal vowels (PSl. *ǫ *ę → /ã/), then regained the distinction (/ã ãː/ → /ɛ̃ ɔ̃/)
· palatalized /l/ before front vowels, then depalatalized it
· lost /w/ (PIE *w → PSl *v), then regained it (from PSl *l)
· lost closed syllables (PSl), then regained them
· lost the /ar/ sequence (PSl *ar → *ro), then regained it (*ŭr → ar)
The conlanger formerly known as “the conlanger formerly known as Pole, the”.

If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.

Zju
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 243
Joined: Tue May 08, 2012 11:10 am

Re: Restoration

Post by Zju »

Middle Bulgarian and other south Slavic languages had ʒ > r in certain environments, but in Bulgarian this has been largely reversed due to changes by analogy. Infact the only word with the sound change still in place I can think of is the archaic дорде 'until' < до же де. Other south Slavic languages also had analogical levelings, but to lesser extents.

User avatar
Zaarin
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:00 pm

Re: Restoration

Post by Zaarin »

According to Ehret, Proto-Afroasiatic *f > Proto-Semitic *p > Arabic f.
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”

Porphyrogenitos
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:13 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Restoration

Post by Porphyrogenitos »

There's the super-long shift of t > θ > ð > d > t from PIE to High German, as in *ph₂tḗr > *fadēr > Vater

User avatar
Frislander
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 836
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 6:34 am
Location: The North

Re: Restoration

Post by Frislander »

There also the crazy Hawai'ian/Samoan t > k > ' > 0
https://frislander.tumblr.com/

First known on here as Karero

User avatar
Pole, the
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1606
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:50 am

Re: Restoration

Post by Pole, the »

Frislander wrote:There also the crazy Hawai'ian/Samoan t > k > ' > 0
What is restored here?
The conlanger formerly known as “the conlanger formerly known as Pole, the”.

If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.

User avatar
Frislander
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 836
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 6:34 am
Location: The North

Re: Restoration

Post by Frislander »

Pole, the wrote:
Frislander wrote:There also the crazy Hawai'ian/Samoan t > k > ' > 0
What is restored here?
Glottal stop is lost, so k debuccalises to k and restores it. Then t backs and restores k.
https://frislander.tumblr.com/

First known on here as Karero

User avatar
KathTheDragon
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2139
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
Location: Brittania

Re: Restoration

Post by KathTheDragon »

Oh, you mean as a chain shift?

Astraios
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 2974
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:38 am
Location: Israel

Re: Restoration

Post by Astraios »

Proto-Semitic *θ *ð became š z in Hebrew, but θ ð were restored in Biblical Hebrew by spirantization of post-vocalic t d.

PS *p *b *t *d *k *g were all replaced in post-vocalic position in Biblical Hebrew by fricatives through the same process, but p b have been restored in Modern Hebrew by borrowings (and occasionally by analogical levelling); t k have been restored by depharyngealization of ṭ q; and t d g have been restored by losing all traces of spirantization.

Earlier w was lost to v in Modern Hebrew, but w is restored in borrowings.

The pharyngeal /ʕ/ is replaced in the standard register by a glottal stop or zero-consonant, but is occasionally restored in colloquial registers when it occurs in despectives (such as /magˈʕil/ “Gross!”, /maˈʕafan/ “Laaame”, and a few others).

Alon
Sanci
Sanci
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 2:51 pm

Re: Restoration

Post by Alon »

Not sure whether it counts, but in American English, prestige Eastern accents dropped non-prevocalic r's under British influence, but later restored them under inland US influence.

In Middle Chinese, there was a palatal series, /tɕ tɕʰ dʑ ɕ ʑ/. It merged into the retroflex series, but then modern Mandarin created new palatal phones out of alveolar and velar phonemes before /i y/.

User avatar
Zaarin
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:00 pm

Re: Restoration

Post by Zaarin »

Astraios wrote:Proto-Semitic *θ *ð became š z in Hebrew, but θ ð were restored in Biblical Hebrew by spirantization of post-vocalic t d.

PS *p *b *t *d *k *g were all replaced in post-vocalic position in Biblical Hebrew by fricatives through the same process, but p b have been restored in Modern Hebrew by borrowings (and occasionally by analogical levelling); t k have been restored by depharyngealization of ṭ q; and t d g have been restored by losing all traces of spirantization.

Earlier w was lost to v in Modern Hebrew, but w is restored in borrowings.

The pharyngeal /ʕ/ is replaced in the standard register by a glottal stop or zero-consonant, but is occasionally restored in colloquial registers when it occurs in despectives (such as /magˈʕil/ “Gross!”, /maˈʕafan/ “Laaame”, and a few others).
Wait, has Modern Hebrew lost all emphatics? I knew it had the ejective-to-pharyngealized shift under influence from Aramaic and Arabic and that it lost its pharyngeal fricatives under influence from European, but I didn't realize it had lost its emphatics altogether. Ashkenazi and Yemeni Jews still pronounce emphatics, don't they?
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”

Vijay
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2244
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:25 pm
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Re: Restoration

Post by Vijay »

FWIR, Ashkenazim are the ones who don't have any of the emphatics.

Astraios
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 2974
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:38 am
Location: Israel

Re: Restoration

Post by Astraios »

Zaarin wrote:Wait, has Modern Hebrew lost all emphatics? I knew it had the ejective-to-pharyngealized shift under influence from Aramaic and Arabic and that it lost its pharyngeal fricatives under influence from European, but I didn't realize it had lost its emphatics altogether. Ashkenazi and Yemeni Jews still pronounce emphatics, don't they?
No, Modern Hebrew has no emphatics at all. All European variants of Hebrew lost emphatics quickly, from Denmark to Spain to Persia (obviously, because they adopted IE languages which have no such creatures). The immigrant generations in Israel who were/are kicked out of Arabic- and Aramaic-speaking lands might use emphatic stops sometimes, if their Modern Hebrew never became very fluent and they're using a Hebrew word which was preserved with an emphatic in their Arabic/Aramaic dialect, and of course the best of the cream of the Yemenite/Moroccan/Iraqi singers do try to use emphatics in traditional singing or ritual language, but even they don't always, and certainly not in ordinary speech. I've heard Ethiopians using ejective stops in MH, but I think that's more due to poor language ability than anything. And even the queens of pharyngealization the Arabs themselves don't bother to pharyngealize stops in MH. So no, the Hebrew that is being passed on to the next generation has no emphatic stops, and only has post-uvular consonants at all as a stylistic phenomenon.


EDIT: One has to be careful of is the distinction between Biblical Hebrew (spoken ~2500 years ago), Modern Hebrew (spoken today as the native language of Israelis), and "Liturgical Hebrew" (the written language of the Bible and other scriptures, as pronounced by modern religious communities of different linguistic backgrounds). Liturgical Hebrew certainly still has emphatics for communities with Semitic-speaking backgrounds.

User avatar
Zaarin
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:00 pm

Re: Restoration

Post by Zaarin »

Astraios wrote:
Zaarin wrote:Wait, has Modern Hebrew lost all emphatics? I knew it had the ejective-to-pharyngealized shift under influence from Aramaic and Arabic and that it lost its pharyngeal fricatives under influence from European, but I didn't realize it had lost its emphatics altogether. Ashkenazi and Yemeni Jews still pronounce emphatics, don't they?
No, Modern Hebrew has no emphatics at all. All European variants of Hebrew lost emphatics quickly, from Denmark to Spain to Persia (obviously, because they adopted IE languages which have no such creatures). The immigrant generations in Israel who were/are kicked out of Arabic- and Aramaic-speaking lands might use emphatic stops sometimes, if their Modern Hebrew never became very fluent and they're using a Hebrew word which was preserved with an emphatic in their Arabic/Aramaic dialect, and of course the best of the cream of the Yemenite/Moroccan/Iraqi singers do try to use emphatics in traditional singing or ritual language, but even they don't always, and certainly not in ordinary speech. I've heard Ethiopians using ejective stops in MH, but I think that's more due to poor language ability than anything. And even the queens of pharyngealization the Arabs themselves don't bother to pharyngealize stops in MH. So no, the Hebrew that is being passed on to the next generation has no emphatic stops, and only has post-uvular consonants at all as a stylistic phenomenon.


EDIT: One has to be careful of is the distinction between Biblical Hebrew (spoken ~2500 years ago), Modern Hebrew (spoken today as the native language of Israelis), and "Liturgical Hebrew" (the written language of the Bible and other scriptures, as pronounced by modern religious communities of different linguistic backgrounds). Liturgical Hebrew certainly still has emphatics for communities with Semitic-speaking backgrounds.
Thanks for summarizing that; I was unaware that Modern Hebrew had entirely lost its emphatics even among Asiatic Jews (my chief--actually, only--exposure to Modern Hebrew is Ofra Haza). My interest in Semitic languages has chiefly centered around Biblical Hebrew, Akkadian, and Syriac (the writing system more than the language itself), so I'm not very familiar with the modern vernaculars.
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”

Yng
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 880
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:17 pm
Location: Llundain

Re: Restoration

Post by Yng »

Astraios wrote:
Zaarin wrote:Wait, has Modern Hebrew lost all emphatics? I knew it had the ejective-to-pharyngealized shift under influence from Aramaic and Arabic and that it lost its pharyngeal fricatives under influence from European, but I didn't realize it had lost its emphatics altogether. Ashkenazi and Yemeni Jews still pronounce emphatics, don't they?
No, Modern Hebrew has no emphatics at all. All European variants of Hebrew lost emphatics quickly, from Denmark to Spain to Persia (obviously, because they adopted IE languages which have no such creatures). The immigrant generations in Israel who were/are kicked out of Arabic- and Aramaic-speaking lands might use emphatic stops sometimes, if their Modern Hebrew never became very fluent and they're using a Hebrew word which was preserved with an emphatic in their Arabic/Aramaic dialect, and of course the best of the cream of the Yemenite/Moroccan/Iraqi singers do try to use emphatics in traditional singing or ritual language, but even they don't always, and certainly not in ordinary speech. I've heard Ethiopians using ejective stops in MH, but I think that's more due to poor language ability than anything. And even the queens of pharyngealization the Arabs themselves don't bother to pharyngealize stops in MH. So no, the Hebrew that is being passed on to the next generation has no emphatic stops, and only has post-uvular consonants at all as a stylistic phenomenon.


EDIT: One has to be careful of is the distinction between Biblical Hebrew (spoken ~2500 years ago), Modern Hebrew (spoken today as the native language of Israelis), and "Liturgical Hebrew" (the written language of the Bible and other scriptures, as pronounced by modern religious communities of different linguistic backgrounds). Liturgical Hebrew certainly still has emphatics for communities with Semitic-speaking backgrounds.
I know I've read in a few places that there is a distinct (low-prestige) and more classically Semitic-sounding Sephardi accent - is this a thing which is now disappearing, or is it characterised by other features? I wasn't under the impression it had emphatics (though I guess some would make sense if people knew the liturgical pronunciation of liturgical Hebrew before they learnt Modern Hebrew and carried features over), but I swear it had some Semitic-y features like perhaps having 3ayn or something... Can you enlighten further??

Incidentally emphatic stops in the Arabic dialects of the Levant at least are generally analysed as velarised and not pharyngeal.

Edit: I'd guess ma3afan is an Arabic borrowing or influenced by the Arabic word (< m3affen 'rotten') which probably explains the 3ayn there.
كان يا ما كان / يا صمت العشية / قمري هاجر في الصبح بعيدا / في العيون العسلية

tà yi póbo tsùtsùr ciivà dè!

short texts in Cuhbi

Risha Cuhbi grammar

Astraios
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 2974
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:38 am
Location: Israel

Re: Restoration

Post by Astraios »

Zaarin wrote:my chief--actually, only--exposure to Modern Hebrew is Ofra Haza
:) If you like her, I could recommend also Gila Bashari, for example.

Yng wrote:I know I've read in a few places that there is a distinct (low-prestige) and more classically Semitic-sounding Sephardi accent - is this a thing which is now disappearing, or is it characterised by other features? I wasn't under the impression it had emphatics (though I guess some would make sense if people knew the liturgical pronunciation of liturgical Hebrew before they learnt Modern Hebrew and carried features over), but I swear it had some Semitic-y features like perhaps having 3ayn or something... Can you enlighten further??
Oy. I have so many things to say, but this is getting out of hand, so I’m making this as concise as I can.

Yes, the ‘Mizrahi’( not Sephardi)-accented variant of Modern Hebrew is low-prestige, is disappearing from normal speech registers, and doesn’t have emphatics, unless perhaps, as I noted above and you say, the speaker has such poor Hebrew that they prefer their own native language’s pronunciation of a particular Hebrew word which had been preserved in their native language (Judeo-Arabic, Jewish Neo-Aramaic) with an emphatic.

The Sephardi variant of liturgical Hebrew is kind of a non-entity, as ‘Sephardic liturgy’ covers both sides of the Mediterranean from Portugal to Persia and has influences from tens of native languages. But yes, you are right, the liturgical variant which was influenced by Judeo-Spanish does not have emphatics, though it does preserve both /ʕ/ and /ħ/, and also has a flapped [ɾ] for MH /ʁ/. This was also the variant chosen for revival as the national language in the 1880s, but due to complex societal reasons (in short, association with refugees from the Middle East), it has lost some of its prestige, such that it’s now low-prestige in ordinary speech registers (it’s mostly spoken by older generations). However, it is still considered “more beautiful” than standard Israeli MH, and is still the only appropriate variant for certain genres of music, for example, where it is very much alive. Extremely unhelpfully, this variant of Israeli MH is today called a ‘Mizrahi’ accent, and its relation to Judeo-Spanish is forgotten.

The actual Mizrahi (Arabic- and Aramaic-influenced) variants of liturgical Hebrew may still have emphatics, at least for those very few Jews who still speak better Arabic/Aramaic than Modern Hebrew, but the vast majority of Mizrahim don’t have emphatics even in liturgy, since the vast majority of them were born in Israel and speak the ‘Mizrahi’ variant of MH described in the preceding paragraphs, not any variant related to their own liturgical tradition. In addition, consider this song in the Yemenite liturgical variant, by a native Arabic-speaker; his emphatics are very much more purely pharyngeal than what you find in Arabic, and don’t much affect the vowels, which is part of a general tendency in liturgical Hebrew (having many more distinct vowels than Arabic), and probably contributed to their current loss. The Mizrahim tend to be very proud of their pharyngeals though, and like to use them on purpose to make a statement about their non-Ashkenaziness, because there is naturally a certain classism against Israelis of poorer, less-educated (Middle Eastern) backgrounds and in favor those of wealthier (European) backgrounds, and equally naturally a great deal of pride among Mizrahim in not being European - cf. this fun song, This Isn’t Europe, Honey, which scolds/mocks gay Israelis for becoming over-Europeanized, while (hilariously) being performed in very standard, non-‘Mizrahi’, Israeli MH* (by a singer born in Yemen).


tl;dr
1. Emphatics are not found in MH, but may exist in Mizrahi liturgical variants (especially Yemenite).
2. If they still exist, they’re harder to spot because they don’t affect vowels.
3. Pharyngeals are found in ‘Mizrahi’-accented MH, which is actually the Sephardic liturgical variant.
4. This ‘Mizrahi’-accented MH is dying with the older generations, but still very alive in traditional music.
5. Standard Israeli MH is identical to the above, but the pharyngeals are lost due to IE-language influence and classism.


*Incidentally, and more on-topic, it contains the slang word wej “facepic” (< Arabic wajh “face”), which demonstrates MH’s restored /w/.

Yng wrote:Edit: I'd guess ma3afan is an Arabic borrowing or influenced by the Arabic word (< m3affen 'rotten') which probably explains the 3ayn there.
Neat, I didn’t know the source. That also explains its un-Hebrew maCaCaC shape.


ETA: An example of ‘Mizrahi’-accented MH. Note the pharyngeals, but everything else is standard Israeli (uvular rhotic, deletion of glottals, voicing assimilation in consonant clusters) - shows how far the pharyngeals still are from actual death.

User avatar
Zaarin
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:00 pm

Re: Restoration

Post by Zaarin »

Astraios wrote:
Zaarin wrote:my chief--actually, only--exposure to Modern Hebrew is Ofra Haza
:) If you like her, I could recommend also Gila Bashari, for example.
I'll check her out. :D
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”

Yng
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 880
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:17 pm
Location: Llundain

Re: Restoration

Post by Yng »

Thanks astraios, interesting stuff!
كان يا ما كان / يا صمت العشية / قمري هاجر في الصبح بعيدا / في العيون العسلية

tà yi póbo tsùtsùr ciivà dè!

short texts in Cuhbi

Risha Cuhbi grammar

User avatar
Zaarin
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:00 pm

Re: Restoration

Post by Zaarin »

Yng wrote:Thanks astraios, interesting stuff!
Indeed. :D

On the topic of Semitic, how do Semitic languages pronounce the imperative of resonant-initial roots like LQṬ? Epenthetic schwa, i.e. lqaṭ [ləqatˁ]?
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”

Yng
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 880
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:17 pm
Location: Llundain

Re: Restoration

Post by Yng »

I don't really understand your question. Different Semitic languages form the imperative differently. In Classical Arabic it's formed from the bare root with a vocalic prefix to prevent impossible consonant clusters. So the imperative would be ilqaT. Some colloquials have lqaT or lqaaT instead.
كان يا ما كان / يا صمت العشية / قمري هاجر في الصبح بعيدا / في العيون العسلية

tà yi póbo tsùtsùr ciivà dè!

short texts in Cuhbi

Risha Cuhbi grammar

User avatar
Zaarin
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:00 pm

Re: Restoration

Post by Zaarin »

Yng wrote:I don't really understand your question. Different Semitic languages form the imperative differently. In Classical Arabic it's formed from the bare root with a vocalic prefix to prevent impossible consonant clusters. So the imperative would be ilqaT. Some colloquials have lqaT or lqaaT instead.
I'm reading Lipinski (who admittedly has some non-standard views on Semitic, including a Moroccan homeland for Semitic that I've heard nowhere else and that PS emphatics were pharyngealized rather than ejective), and he says the basic form of the Semitic imperative is CCvC. According to Lipinski, the prefix-conjugation of the imperative forms the jussive, which is used as the basis for optatives, volitives, vetitives, etc. So do all Semitic dialects have the vocalic prefix to avoid illegal clusters? If not, how do those other dialects pronounce imperatives with illegal clusters?
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”

Richard W
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:28 pm

Re: Restoration

Post by Richard W »

Zaarin wrote:So do all Semitic dialects have the vocalic prefix to avoid illegal clusters? If not, how do those other dialects pronounce imperatives with illegal clusters?
Underlying BCvD works quite well. In Biblical Hebrew, schwa is generally inserted between B and C, but if B is a weak consonant, it may be dropped instead.

The regular Akkadian imperative (m.s.) is <BuCuD>, but I suppose that could hide a phonetic [BCuD].

Post Reply