Ancient scripts and phonological knowledge

ANCIENT SCRIPTS AND PHONOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE A�TERDAMSTUD�INTHETHEORYAND mST ORY OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE General Editor E...

Author: D. Gary Miller

82 downloads 7887 Views 9MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

ANCIENT SCRIPTS AND PHONOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE

A�TERDAMSTUD�INTHETHEORYAND mST ORY OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE General Editor E. F. KONRAD KOERNER (University of Ottawa)

Series IV - CURRENT ISSUES IN LINGUISTIC THEORY

Advisory Editorial Board Henning Andersen (Los Angeles); Raimo Anttila (Los Angeles) Thomas V. Gamkrelidze (Thilisi); John E. Joseph (Hong Kong) Hans-Heinrich Lieb (Berlin); Ernst Pulgram (Ann Arbor, Mich.) E. Wyn Roberts (Vancouver, B.C.); Danny Steinberg (Tokyo)

Volume 116

D. Gary Miller Ancient Scripts and Phonological Knowledge

ANCIENT SCRIPTS AND PHONOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE

D. GARY MILLER

University of Florida

JOHN BENJAWNS PUBLISHING COMPANY AMSTERDAMlPHll..ADELPHIA

The paper used in this publication meets the mInimum requirements of American National Standard for Infonnation Sciences - Permanence of

Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39,48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-fn-Publicatfon Data Miller,

D.

Gary.

Ancient scripts and phonological knowledge I p.

D.

Gary Miller.

cm. -- (Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series

IV, Current issues in linguistic theory, ISSN 0304-0763 ; v. 116) Includes bibliographical references and index.

I. Grammar, Comparative and general--Phono]ogy. 2. Inscriptions, Linear B. 3. Cypriote

syUabary. 4. Alphabet. 5. Language awareness. I. Title. 11. Series. P217.3.M55

1994

414--dc20 ISBN 90 272 3619 4

(Eur.) I 1-55619-570-2

94-28635 (US) (alk. paper)

CIP

© Copyright 1994 - John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co.

•

P.D.Box 75577

•

1070 AN Amsterdam· The Netherlands

John Benjamins North America· P.D.Box 27519· Philadelphia, PA 19118· USA

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Parts of this work were presented at conferences, and other parts read by friends and colleagues. Particular analyses and formulations have profited from comments and suggestions by Henning Andersen, Elmer Antonsen, Alice Faber, Susan Guion, Jay Jasanoff, Katherine Leffel, Marie Nelson, Steve Podlecki, Tom Sawallis, Robert Scholes, Martin Schwartz, Nelleke Van Deusen-Scholl, and W. C. Watt. Thanks also to Susan Guion, Jean Pierre Olivier, Robert Scholes, and Roger Woodard for making available to me prepublished copies of their work. Special thanks go to Rex Wallace, John Stonham, and Elisa Maranzana for generous comments on the entire manuscript. Many useful discussions with Elisa helped clarify numerous points. Elmer Antonsen and Jay Jasanoff provided valuable assistance on the chapter on the runic alphabet. Jean-Pierre Olivier also provided generous assistance by sharing his own linear B fonts and advising me on several characters. My wife, Judith A. Miller. children 's book writer and illustrator, aided the final preparation by meticulously drawing the graphic symbols in Appendix A. Several generations of students who suffered through preliminary versions of this work also deserve a "thank you". Konrad Koemer deserves special mention for cheerfully fielding my E mail pleas for help at all hours of the day or night, and for numerous valuable suggestions that enhanced the content of the manuscript as well as the style. Yola de Lusenet of Benjamins facilitated the technical issues of publication and advertising.

D. Gary Miller Gainesville, Aa., March 1994

ABBREVIATIONSl ABL

AOC ACT AGRlAgr Anc. AORlaor.

AIab.

Arc.

arch. Archil.

Alt. AUXlAux C

(l)NJ

qxi

Cret.

Cypr.

DAT dial(s)

ablative acc:uali a ve active agreement ADcient aorist Arabic Arcadi.an archaic

Arcbilochus (mid VU)

Attic auxiliary (verb) COllSC08l1t conjugation (class) madter compound(ed) Cretan

Cyprian dative dialect(s)

ECP

Empty Category Principle

FffEM

feminine future passive participle future genitive

FFP

RJTlfut GEN

Germ. Ok. Gmc. Hdt.

Hes. HOOl. loel.

id.

lE D.

IMPV/impv

IND ind.obj. INF

loo. Ital. KN Lal.

German Gn:ek

Germanic Herodotus (ca. -484-424) Hesiod (ca. end vm?) Homer (ca. end vm) Icelandic [idem] the same (mcanimg)

Indo-European JUod (of Homer)

imperative indicative indirect object infmitive Ionic/Ionian Italian Knossos Latin

LOCIloc

MlMAS C MFDPASS

MID

Mod. Myc. Nln NOM NP

o(t). O. OB/oq.

Od. ON

OPT/opt. p/pl. PAP partic. PASS/pass p.c. PERFIPFCf ro

Pind PI.

POSS

pp ppp

Prep

PRFS

pret.

PIP PV

q.v. slsg. Sem. Sim. Tbess. Thuc. V

vl.

VP

w.lit

localiveJ1ocalicmal masculine mediopassive middle Modem Mycenaean DCUIcr nominative nounpbrase DCUIcr Old

oiject

Odyssey (of HmleI")

Old Norse oplaIive plmal perfect active participle participle passive

perBODal correspoodence

perfect(ivc)

Particular Grammar

Pindar(-518-438) Plato (ca. -427-347) possessive/possessed perfect participle perfect/past passive participle prepositicm

preseut

preterit(e) present participle Pylos

[quod vide] which sec singular Semonides (fl. mid VU) Simonides (ca. -556-468) Thessalim Thucydides (ca. -460-400) vowel variant (manuscript) reading verbpbrase with literature (i.e., references)

1 Bibliographical abbreviations are included in the Refermccs.

CONTENTS Acknowledgements

v

Abbreviations

vi

o.

Preface

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Objectives of the Study Scripts as Representation Plan of the Book Dating Conventions

1.

Theoretic:al Prerequisites

le

The Linear B SyUabary

3.

The Cyrprlan Syllabary

1.0 1.1 1.2 1 .3 1.4 1 .5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1 .9 1 . 10

2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8

3.0 3. 1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8

Introduction Scripts The Syllable and the Sonority Hierarchy Sonority Distance and English Words Some Consequences and Predictions of the SH Some SH Effects in Ancient Greek The Sonority Hierarchy, PG Stipulations, and Syllable Parsing Parameters of Syllable Head Projection Directionality and Segments of Identical Sorority Marked Syllable Structures and Change Conclusion Introduction Linguistic Inventory of Linear B Signs Mycenaean Syllable Structure and Spelling Conventions Sonority Hierarchy and Mycenaean Syllabification The Linear B Evidence Olide-Liquid/Liquid-Olide Sequences and the Patteming of Iwl Onset Clusters in Coda Position Variant Spellings Conclusion

Introduction Cyprian and Linear B: Continuity and Innovation Script Innovation and Text-Type The Cyprian Evidence Counterconventions: The Writing of Stop-Continuant Strings Morphological Input and Boundary Phenomena Continuant-Stop Sequences Exceptions and Other Conditioning Factors Conclusion

xi xii xv xvi 1 1 2 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 13 15 16 18 22 24 2S 26 27 27 29 29 32 33 34 35 36

viii 4.

5.

,.

CONTENfS

The Greek Alphabet 4.0 Introduction 4.1 Transmission of the Northwest Semitic Script 4.2 Northwest Semitic Scripts and the Adaplalion to Greek 4.3 The Case for the Early Borrowing of the Greek Alphabet 4.4 Some Early Forms of Greek Letters 4.5 Internal Greek Prehistoric Developments: The Vowels 4.6 LaterlRegional Vowel Letters 4.7 The Supplemental Consonants 4.8 The Evolution of Qoppa 4.9 Supplementals and the Sibilant Letters 4. 10 The Antiquity of Segmental Writing 4. 1 1 Adaptation and Development Phase of the Greek Alphabet 4. 12 Summary and Conclusion 4. 13 Interaction Between the Syllabary and Alphabet Traditions

The Runic Alphabet 5.0 Introduction 5. 1 The Older Runic Fullarlc. 5.2 An Idealized Runic Abecedarium and its Divisions 5.3 Origin of the Runic Alphabet: Meditenanean Theory 5.4 Critique of the Latin Origin Theory 5.5 Runic as an Invented Script 5.6 Germanic Vowels and Runic Letters 5.7 The Thirteenth Rune 5.8 Phonological Basis of the Order of the Runic Letters 5.9 Class and Manner Projections of the Runic Matrix 5.10 Antiquity of the Phonological Matrix: Byblos 5.1 1 The Ras Shamra Matrix 5. 12 Fmpty Cells and the Antiquity of the Runic Matrix 5.13 Conclusion APPENDIX: The Proto-Germanic Vowel System 5.14 Long Vowels 5. 15 Core Short Vowel Reflexes 5.16 Short Vowels in Unstressed Syllables 5.17 New Long Vowels 5. 18 The Status of � 5. 19 Proto-Germanic Vowels and the Runic Alphabet Literacy and Linguistic Knowledge 6.0 Introduction 6.1 The Word 6.2 Word Boundaries 6.3 Knowledge of Word Constituency 6.4 Knowledge of Words in Antiquity 6.5 Acquisition of Morphology

39 40 40 42 44

46 48 48

51 53 54 55

56

.58

61 62 63 63 65

66

68 69 70 72 73 74 75 76

77

77 78 80 81 82 85 85 g] 88 89 91

CONTENTS

6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 7.

Word Salience: Conclusion The Syllable Segments and Phonemes The Role of the Phoneme in Language Change The Phonology/Orthography Interface Phonology-Orthography Mappings Spelling and Metaknowledge Implicit Segmental Awareness Conclusion

Implications: An Ideal Script? 7.0 Introduction 7.1 Realities to be Dealt With 7.2 Script Abstractness and Phonological Cues 7.3 The Alphabet Compromise vs. More Ideal Scripts 7.4 Devising an Fificient Syllabary 7.5 Reprise and Conclusion

ix 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 100 102

103 103 104 104 105 106

Appendices Appendix A: From Proto-Sinaitic to Greek Appendix B: The linear B Syllabary A ppendix C: The Cyprian Syllabary

109 113 115

References

117

General Index

137

o. PREFACE 0.1 Objectives o/the Study The topic of this study is both more and less than the tide suggests. Since the target is the phonological knowledge that underlies segmental scripts, especially of the linear variety ( 'alphabets'), and, since the only verifiable instance of the (spontaneous) creation of an alphabet involves the Northwest Semitic script and its derivatives (Diringer 1968: 164, 435; Sampson 1985: 71; R. Harris 1986:27; Sass 1988: 167; Cross 1989:77), our concentration will be on early Western scripts with segmental coding. Because two syllabic scripts from Ancient Greece provide clues to the development of the Greek alphabet, they will also be examined. The objective in each case is to demonstrate the high degree of segmental awareness that was coded in the scripts and their orthographic conventions. Some ancient Western scripts are thus examined for theoretical implications - assumptions about phonology that underlie them. It haS been the standard assumption of Western culture that the alphabet is the greatest invention since the wheel. 1 Some scholars, such as Roy Harris (1986:37), have challenged this "ethnocentric bias of a European approach to non-European languages". Nevertheless, very few researchers have seriously disputed the prevailing notion that the alphabet is superior to other (e.g., syllabic) scripts; see the references in Coulmas (1989:44), who challenges this view as "simplistic". Yet that is not enough of a criticism. Coulmas goes 1 The present work is exclusively linguistic. We will not get into the politics that have attributed the tecimocratic supremacy of the West to the alphabet (see Olson 1994). Already Pl.ato (Phaedrus 274-275) had the king respond to Thoth's legendary invention of writing

that it would inhibit wisdom. For criticism of the still voguish view that the alphabet was literally responsible for the development of civilization, see PoweD (1981), Finnegan (1988), Bloch (1989). Coulmas (1989). Larsen (1989). Thomas (1992), and especially Maranzana (1993); cf. Barton (1994). As stated by Coulmas (p.I60), "What is swprising about this approach is that it was ever taken seri0U8ly and discussed by serious scholars." For the development of writing. see. for the older literature, the indispensable studies by Gelb (1963). Diringer (1968), and Jensen (1969). More recent approaches are found in Naveh (1982). Sampson (1985). R. Harris (1986), Coulmas (1989). Healey (1990). and the articles in Senner (1989) and Hooker (1990). Technical studies include Dietrlch & Loretz (1988). Sass (1988). Schmandt-Besserat (1992). Segert (1993).

xii

PREFACE

on to assert that the alphabet is "the most economical system" (cf. Diringer 1968: 13) but hastens to stress that it is better equipped to handle languages like Greek than tone languages. However, accentual distinctions in Greek, e.g., <j>Gic; phiJs /rJ16ost "light": <j>Wt; phIB /rJt06s / "man" are no better handled by any of the world's usual scripts. Sampson (1985: 107) claims it does not matter because the RJNCflONAL YIELD of accent in Ancient Greek was low (which is not clear; see BubenCk 1983: 134[0. That of course misses the point that in a language in which accent has a higher functional load, a strictly linear segmental script is woefully inadequate, as Sampson (pp. 37-38) notes in conjunction with English intonation. In fact, an alphabet is not the most economical system, nor is it necessarily the simplest to learn just because it contains the fewest symbols (Gelb 1963: 184ff; Diringer 1968:13; Sass 1988: 167-168, with reservations). To some extent, as several scholars have.tried to maintain, there is a trade-off in complexity with respect to linguistic (speci fically phonological/segmental) knOWledge. That is, some have claimed that alphabets are harder to learn because segments are not salient. We wiJJ argue that (1) this is only partially true, and (2) alphabets may be easier to learn but (for separate reasons) not simpler to read - despite the ostensible advantage adduced by Harris (1986: 119), that alphabets not only reduce the number of symbols but simultaneously "lose few or none of the facilities of 'word identification' which the previous writing system afforded. " An important principle that will be employed throughout, though rejected by Gelb ( 1963: 140-143, 251) , is the ACROPHONIC PRINCIPLE defined by Coulmas (1989: 33) as the principle "whereby a word acquires the phonetic value of the beginning of the whole word for whose writing it was originally used." A weaker version is generally adopted, whereby" A as in apple" exemplifies a modified (non-iconic to the symbol) ·acrophonic principle, the source of the ancient letter-names (Diringer 1968: 168-169; Jensen 1969:53; Gessman 1975: 14; Sampson 1985: 78, 101; Harris 1986:31), analogous to modem radio alphabets like able, baker, charlie, etc. (Gelb 1963: 142; Faber 1992: 126). Compare the Slavic glagolitic letter-names a z "I", buky "letter", vitli "knowledge", glagol' "speech", etc. (Gelb 1963: 141; Gessman 1975: 75).

0.2 SCripts as RepresenlDtion What do scripts mirror? Coulmas (1989: 47) challenges the view that scripts mirror speech, the underlying assumption of which is that "a good writing system is an isomorphic mapping of speech." That is, there is a one to-one correspondence between sounds and signs (cf. Diringer 1968: 12-13, 163; Jensen 1969:583). Coulmas argues, following the tradition of Gelb

xiii

PREFACE

( 1 963: IS, 224fl), Jensen ( 1 969:583-586), and others, that this ignores three important points: ( 1) this ideal is probably not realizable for any script; (2) the script user is not interested in the same precision mapping as the linguist [and would actually be slowed down by it D.G.M]; and (3) orthography is normative. In actuality, there are no 'pure' scripts because of the conflict pinpointed by SPE (p.49): -

Orthography is a system designed for readers who know the language, who unda' stand sentences and therefore know the surface structure of sentences. [.. ] It would be quite pointless for the orthography to indicate [ . . ] predictable variants. Except for unpredictable variants (e.g., man men. buy boughi), ail optimal orthography would have one representation for each lexical entry. Up to ambigUity, then, such a system would maintain a close correspondence between semantic units and ortho graphic representations. A system of this sort is of little use for one who wishes to produce tolerable speech without knowing the Ianguage l.. ]. .

.

-

-

.

The conflict is thus whether a script is going to mirror the lexical entry (semantic pole) or the output (phonetic pole) or some combination or a more abstract level of representation. Some scripts are close to phonemic (e.g., Spanish, Latvian), some encode morphophonemic information (e.g., Dutch, German, Russian), and some contain a large amount of morphemic, lexical, and even heuristic information, e.g., English (cf. Sampson 1985:194-2 13; Coulmas 1989:175-176; §6. 12 below). Spelling in English is often lexical semantic or logographic,2 viz. new � knew � gnu � pneu-, or main � mane � mein � Maine. Note also differences among identical spellings, e.g., -ombof bomb, tomb. comb, or the notorious -()ugh of through, though, thought, trough, tough, bough, hiccough . And so on. Since antiquity (e.g., Aristotle, de Interpretatione 1.4-6), it is customary to conceptualize writing as a representation of speech (see Harris 1 986:83-86) but Harris (pp. 91-92) argues that writing cannot be simply a representation of speech because different writing systems are associated with different neurolinguistic problems. For instance, Japanese dyslexics familiar with the syllabic kana script and the logogmphic (Chinese) kanji script do not have the same difficulties (but see Morais 1991: 17- 18; Mann 1991:57fl). More to the point, no system so far devised comes close to representing all of our phono logical knowledge, presumably because most nonpictographic systems are linear attempts at representing something nonlinear/multiplanar. 2 On the loose use of the term

logographic in connection with English orthography, see, e.g., PoweD (1991: 75,116); cc. Gelb (1963:15) on 'visual morphemes'. For a useful overview of English orthographic conventions and their history. see Jespersen (1948: 146-149).

xiv

PRFFACE

A body of evidence for the autonomy of writing systems is presented in Harris ( 1986: 105-1(8). For instance, scripts may contain non-phonologically or non-morphologically realized (i.e., unpronounced and/or unpronounceable) symbols, such as classificatory detenninative signs, extremely frequent in hieroglyphic and cuneiform systems, signs for people (male, female, queen, etc.), wooden objects; and so on. In our own system, botanists intersperse amid ordinary writing special symbols for male, female, etc.� astronomers, chemists, mathematicians, and other professionals use special symbols (Gelb 1963: 15-20; Gessman 1975:8). Differences between upper and lower case letters most frequently correspond to nothing in the spoken language at all. Occasionally, there is a semantic difference, as in Smith : smith, De mocrat ic : de mocratic, AIDS : aids, etc. (cr. Gessman 1975: 15); a message in ALL CAPS may express the attitude or intonation of the speaker. And so on. Sequential restrictions, such as q only before u, are synchronically arbitrary and correspond to nothing linguistic (Harris, p. 1 1 5; more in §6. 1 1). Another factor, extensively discussed by Jensen ( 1969:587-592; cr. Gessman 1975:98102), involves stylistic developments, especially those motivated by con siderations of speed, such as shorthands, abbreviations, cursive stenography, brachygraphy, tachygraphy. 'Fonts' constitute another stylistic difference (Gessman 1975: 15, 87-95). All of this very strongly suggests that scripts have an autonomy of their own and are not merely representational sys.tems of spoken language. As emphasized by Harris ( 1986: 1 19), writing "as writing" has for millennia been "independent of the spoken word". While all of this is undeniable, one must not get too carried away with the independence of scripts and language. The independence could allow us to forget that the entire point of a script is in fact to represent graphically some aspect or aspects of the linguistic knowledge of native speakers of a language (on which, see Chomsky 1986). The conflict will always be on what kind of knowledge will be mirrored, whether it will be exclusively phono logical (and which aspects of that - syllables and/or segments), partly morphological, partly lexical or semantic. Thus viewed, writing systems are attempts at representing different, 'competing' aspects of language (more specifically, language knowledge), some phonetic (noncontrastive). some phonemic (contrast and opposition). some lexical/morphological (root or affix unity). some morphophonemic (in the broad sense). Such competing goals are apt to yield discrepancies and irregularities in graphic conventions. This study will investigate the properties of several ancient syllabic and linear segmental scripts to make explicit the aspects of linguistic knowledge which they are attempting to represent. Chapter 6 will present independent evidence for the types of knowledge identified in the previous chapters.

PREFACE

xv

0.3 Plan ofthe Book Recent work on scripts (discussed in chap.6) has tended to support the age-old prejudice that alphabets impart a knowledge of segments, and that people without alphabets have no knowledge of words, much less segments. linguistic analysis of the Greek Linear B syllabary (chap.2) and Cyprian syllabary (chap.3) shows that nothing could be farther from the truth. The spelling conventions of these two ancient scripts are based on the Sonority Hierarchy (SH), and presuppose a sophisticated (at least implicit) knowledge of the arrangement of segments according to the SH. Specifically, the sophistication of developing and using a script based on the SH, consistently performing exhaustive SH analyses of each word and spelling individual segments according to their position in the SH, devising solutions to problems like SH onsets in coda position or codas in onset position, handling problems of syllable adjuncts and SH violations in the language, and occasionally trying to represent compositional information as well, go lightyears beyond anything predicted by proponents of privileged alphabet knowledge. To assess the development of alphabets and their adaptation to particular phonological systems, the history of the Greek alphabet is explored in chapter 4. Its Phoenician source fits letter-by-letter into a phonetic matrix analogous to the Byblos and Ras Shamra matrices (chap.S), in which segments are arranged as follows: laryngeais> labials> alveolars> velars> dentaJs. Again, the question arises, how can there be a phonetic-order conception of segments without a concept of segments? Similarly, the Germanic runic fupark (chap.S) fits a matrix arranged: lip-rounded> dental> (alveo)palataJ> velar. The changes and adaptations in the creation and ordering of that script reveal a knowledge of segments and their phonetic/phonological properties. Chapter 6 discusses some recent experimental research which has denied the very linguistic knowledge demonstrated to underlie the ancient scripts. Independent corroborative evidence for that knowledge is presented, forcing the conclusion that the experiments are faulty in their design and results. They do not begin to access the linguistic knowledge possessed by native speakers. Consequently, that type of research does a disservice to humanity and the scholarly community in claiming to validate age-old prejudices under a pseudoscientific guise. The concluding chapter discusses some implications for the design of scripts and for future experimental work.

xvi

PREFACE

0.4 Dating Conventio", To avoid problems of time reckoning, I will follow Sampson (1985) in using a date like 1980 for the modem era (= AD.lC.E.) and -1980 for antiquity (= 1980 B.C./B.C.E.). Also, for generic ancient dating, the convention of Roman numerals is used, e.g., Naxos, VI = Naxos, sixth century B.C.IB.C.E., or-6c.

1. THEORETICAL PREREQUISITES 1.0 Introduction After a brief discussion of the typology of scripts targets the hopeless ambiguity of the term syllabary, a theoretical perspective on the structure of the syllable is pursued. Segments are arranged in the syllable in the unmarked case according to the Sonority Hierarchy and independent feature geometry. The Sonority Hierarchy is shown 10 make substantial predictions about the sequencing of segments universally and in Ancient Greek, where it was a strong motivating factor in a number of changes. A theory of syllable parsing and syllabification is introduced which builds on principles and parameters of head placement. The syllable is claimed 10 be a Sonority "Phrase' structurally.

1. 1 Scripts A note on script types is in order. The term SYLLABARY is hopelessly vague, as emphasized by Faber ( 1992:122), who divides syl labically linear systems into those that are syllabically coded (Akkadian, Japanese [kana] 1 ) and segmental ly coded (Hebrew, Aramaic, devan agari, etc.); segmenta lly linear systems she subdivides into complete (true alphabets: Greco-Latin and its derivatives) and defective (Ugaritic, Phoenician, etc.). The Linear B script she considers to be "syllabically linear and incomplete" (p.I23). But it is also (partially) segmentally coded. Faber's classification has no category for 'exhaustively analyzed but inexhaustively coded' as a matter of choice, since she does not believe that people without an alphabet can exhaustively analyze words segmentally. As she explicitly states ( 1992: 1 12), given the evidence that is customarily considered,2 "segmentation ability, rather than being a 1 Poser (1992) argues that even this classification is too simplistic because the Japanese kana system, with symbols for vowel length, gemination. etc., is mora-based, not syllable-based (and Timothy Vance agrees, p.c.). I thank John Stonbam for this reference. 2 This is a necessary qualification. In a letter (18 Jan. 1993), Faber writes, "My purpose my only purpose - in the Segmentation paper was to demonstrate that nothing in the interface between Canaanite and True-Greek necessitates the assumption that [the early users of True-Greek orthography had an essentially modem segmental awareness]. The target audience was those psycholinguists who see in the structure of True-Greek orthography the

2

ANCIENT

SCRIPTS AND PHONOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE

necessary precursor to the innovation of alphabetic writing, was a con sequence of that innovation." (This is a common misconception; cf. Bellamy 1989.) The Linear B script (chap.2) militates against that position. Complete onsets, nuclei, and codas must be exhaustively analyzed segmentally to detennine how a given string is written. This suggests at the very least an implicit knowledge of segments and their hierarchical organization. Alphabets, as noted in the Preface, are not only rare among script types (and all existing ones likely arose from West Semitic scripts), but constitute an attempt to represent phonological knowledge on a single linear plane, in apparent violation of our implicit knowledge of higher levels of organization. Alphabets are advantageous. Because of the limited number of symbols, they are easier to learn. However, they do not indicate any more awareness of segmentation-ability than a syllabary like the Linear B or Cyprian. An alphabet represents less knowledge than does the Cyprian syllabary because it codes only (an incomplete inventory of) segments and omits all reference to syllable structure and the SH. Faber, ironically like those she argues against, seems to give privileged significance to SEGMENTATION as defined by the separate linear representation of consonants and vowels, missing the point that (i) knowledge of the individual segments (consonants and vowels) is clearly necessary to code them properly according to the SH based rules of the script, and (ii) there is no linguistic reason to represent segments in isolation; a syllabic representation contains more infonnation. One potential objection is that the Linear B and Cyprian syllabaries did not factor out vowels as did the Ethiopic and Indic scripts (Sampson 1985:64ff; Faber 1992:120). In fact, the Indic devanzwari(Diringer 1968:283ff), like the Greek syllabaries, represents word-initial vowels differently from those in CV syllables; it differs from the Greek syllabaries in factoring out vowels in CV combinations, but even there a is the default vowel and a special mark is needed to indicate the consonant alone (see Gelb 1963: 149ft). Moreover, the vowel indicators (before, after, or above the consonant) are conceptually syllabic (Diringer 1968:262-263; Faber 1992: 120, 129n.13). Thus, a range of phonological knowledge from segments to syllables is represented in scripts classified as primarily syllabic or primarily segmental (cf. Gelb 1963: 188). 1.2 The Syllable and the Sonority Hierarchy The system of syllabification adopted here is an elaboration of the nuclear structure theory of Leffel (1985) and Levin (1985), in which vowels only compelling evidence for the cognitive naturalness of sub-syllabic segmentation. and my intention was to demonstrate that this is at best a plausibility argument."

TIIEOREflCAL PREREQUISITES

3

(or some other segment, as a parameter) are projected as heads of syllables. In the conception here, the syllable is a Sonority 'Phrase', in which the most sonorous segment (defined by the Sonority Hierarchy) in a string projects as the head of the syllable (§1.6ff). In the standard version of the Sonority Hierarchy (SH) in (1),3 the onset is everything up to the nucleus (V), and the coda is the mirror-image counterpart after the nucleus. The nucleus and coda together constitute an inner constituent (usually called the rime/rhyme from its metrical function), on which see Steriade (1982), Fudge ( 1 987, 1989), Treiman & Zukowski (1991), Carlisle (1991), Kenstowicz (1 994:252f1). (1) Sonority Hierarchy (SH) SYLLABLE rime/rhyme

onset

� Nas Liq GJ

obst

stop cont m n (kpt) (s)

Ir

wy

�

nucleus V

coda

� Liq Nas Obst

GJ

yw

rl

nm

cont stop (s) (tpk)

Clements (1990:3 13) claims that the feature categories (obstruent, nasal, liquid, glide, vowel) are not to be further subdivided (viz. k> p> t; m> n; etc.), as they are in (1), because pJace is not part of sonority. It is true that the SH per se predicts tautosyllabic pw , bw , and tl, dl, which occur in many languages. Their absence from English (words like atlas syllabify hetero3 The Sonority Hierarchy is nothing new; it dates back at least to Thausing (1863). It was defined by Jespersen (1904:187-192) in terms of segments with increasing syllabic and tone bearing ('sonority') properties toward the center (nucleus) of the syllable and decreasing to the end (cf. Sievers 1893:182-190; Grammont 1933: 99. 110). Thanks to Laziczius (1966:171-226). Starnpe (1973). Bell & Hooper (1978:10-11). Kiparsky (1979, 1980), and others. the SH has received renewed interest in recent years. The most detailed eviden ce for the SH (for our purposes) is extensively documented in Steriade (1982). Booij (1984). Levin (1985). Harris (1985. ch.2). Hock (1985). Vennemann (1988). Murray (1988). Basbtlll (1981;J). elements (1990). Rice (1992); cf. Kenslowicz (1994:254ff). My own view is that the SH is of extralinguistic origin (most likely physiological) but interacts with phonological knowledge in crucial ways. It is universal but not so clearly an inviolable principle. It has exceptions. and it is not yet clear which are tolerated or what is impossible. Repair strategies are natural (Physiologically motivated) but apparendy not obligatory.

ANCIENT SCRIPfS AND PHONOLOGICAL KNOWLEOOE

4

syllabically) must therefore be explained in some other manner. Rice (1992: 76) suggests a constraint against identicaJ PLACE STRUCTURE. In that case, the fact that tr,

dr,

but not

tl, dl,

is tolerated implies that Irl and III do not

share place structure. Rice suggests that English Irl lacks a place node. In Ancient Greek, by contrast, Irl evidently had a palatal place of articulation to judge, for instance, from phonological changes, such as Attic reversion

conditioned by Irl, lel, and lil (see Meillet 1903:30; Sommerstein 1973:52ff; Miller 1976a): Significantly,

tl

and

dl were

possible (onset-type) clusters in

Ancient Greek. In stop clusters generally, the coronal is second. According to Rice (1992:82-83), this follows from coronals having less (specified) place structure than the other places of articulation. In general, sonority and place sequences have different properties, and Rice (1992:87) concludes that it is erroneous to build place into a universal SH. This is probably on the right track, but since nothing crucial to our purposes depends on the theoretical rationale for the independent behavior of place features, (1) will continue to be assumed to be the basic SH.4

1.3 Sonority Distance and English Words To illustrate the SH, some basic English words are spelled out in (2).

(2) English Monosyllabic Words and the SH OBST NAS UQ GL V GL UQ

NAS OBST

cont stop

stop cont knight ME:

NE:

bra nd trash

irons

n

k

x

n b t

(§)

a r

re

r

re

a

t t

y n

d

§ y

r

As a parameter, English also requires a MINIMAL

n

z

SONORITY DISTANCE

(Steriade 1982) of at least two 'slots' on the SH (e.g., stop + liquid but not 40ements (1990) and Rice (1992) also claim that continuancy is independent of the SH. It is true that continuancy constitutes a major theoretical problem in that continuants (especially [s)) crosslinguisticaUy typically occupy positions before andIor after stops (see Fujimura & Lovins 1978; Kiparsky 1979:434-435). However. because of problems with reduplication of sC- strings in Sanskrit, Germanic. and other lE llUlgusges. violation of the MinimaJ Sonority Distance in sl-. etc.• and for other reasons that will become clear in the course of this work. I provisionally accept the analysis of Levin (1985). who treats s in initial sC- and fmal -Cs

strings as a syllable adjunct (cf. Kenstowicz 1994:258).

TIIEOREllCAL PREREQUISITES

5

stop + nasal strings are tolerated in syllable onsets), which Clements

(1990:3 17-3 18) declares the unmarked situation (cf. Rice 1 992:67).

The most frequent systematic exception to the SH is [s], as in words like Eng. string (cr. p.4n.4), which may have to do with the unmarked status of coronals (discussion in Kenstowicz 1994: 285, 5 16-521). The most frequent source of adjuncts is morphology (e.g., Eng. pI. -s, which probably remained because it is coronal). A word like six Isrksl is complex by (the standard version 00 the SH; with derivation [slks+1>] (sixth) and inflection [slks+1>+s] (sixths), the fonn is approaching upper limits on efficient pronounceability. 1.4 Some ConseqlUJnces and PTedictions o/the SH As shown in (2), core syllable and word structure is motivated by the SH. The order specified by the SH predominates for word-structure in all natural languages.s No language has just the marked orders (cf. Bell & Hooper 1 978: 10-1 1; Clements 19SX». Following are some typical consequences and predictions of the SH: 1) The SH provides a metric of relative syllable markedness (Bell & Hooper 1 978). In English, [ayrnz] is a possible (monosyllabic) word, but there is no *[arynz], *[aynrz], * [ayrzn], etc.; burn, harm are well-fonned, but *bunr, *hamr are not.6 This does not mean there cannot be language particular exceptions (however motivated): Gothic akrs, Old Norse akr "field" (one syllable) are acceptable, but MARKED in the technical sense: a child acquiring the language must specifically learn which marked orders are .tolerated by the language. 2) Vowels and glides interchange more easily than do vowels and segments of lower sonority, viz. [ey] > [e), [e) > [ey], as in the history of English, but a change of [en] to [e) is not expected, unless [n] becomes a glide first or via nasalization. -

5 John Stonham (p.c.) fmds this an unfortuDate fonnulation in that it "seems to weaken the universal hierarchy to the status of a mere typological tendency [... and] we lose much of the explanatory value On the ODe hand, it is naive to declare the SH a 'principle' because it has numerous exceptions ('adjuncts'), however conceptualized, viz. licensed at some prosodic domain (see Kenstowicz 1994 §6.9). On the other, this does not entail that it is not universal or that it is a mere typological tendency. As noted above, the motivation is physiological, providing a universal natmalness that detennines core syllabification in all natural languages. 6 From the abstract sonority template (SH) can be derived language-specific constraints on possible morpheme/word, but one must be careful to sort out the irrdevant. For instance, it follows from the template that (monosyllabic) nbik is not a possible English word. but not that bnik is not; the latter is a parametric detail due to the Sonority Distance requirement For more discussion of English syllables and what is or is not predicted by the SH, see Kenstowicz (1994:256-261); cf. §6.13.6 bdow. ...

6

ANCIENT SCRIPTS AND PHONOLOOICAL KNOWLEDGE

3) No language has diphthongs like [en] unless it also has [er] and [ey], assuming it has those sounds. As noted by Stonham (p.c.), a language might lack Irl but still have a diphthong like [en]; cf. Stonham ( 1990) on metathesis in Straits Salish and variable-length vowels in Wakashan. 4) Segments of higher sonority become syllable nuclei (as a parameter) more readily than segments of lower sonority. Words like irons layrrrzJ with a heavy coda are subject to resyllabification. The SH predicts that of the liquid and nasal, both of which are in an environment to become 'syllabic' (syllable nucleus/head), the liquid, being more sonorous [closer to the 'center' of ( 1)], will syllabify first, yielding [ayrnz], that is, [a�nz], as an alternate output. 7 5) The hierarchy of syllabification predicts greater instability of syllabic segments more distant from vowels on the SH: [$] will be more unstable than [It) I)], which will be more unstable than [r 1]. It has long been known (since Brugmann 1876, and Saussure 1 878: 18) that the PIE syllabic nasals were not preserved in any lE language. 6) Nasals share glottal features (natural tendency to be voiced) with liquids (e.g., Crothers 1975: 159). 7) Nasals assimilate to the point of contact of an adjacent obstruent (ramp, rant, rank [rregk)); liquids, on the other hand, seldom do (Ferguson 1975; cf. Rice 1992:63-64). 8) Obstruents tend to assimilate to the voicing or nasality of nasals (Anc. Ok. 1TEVTE [pente] --+ Mod. Gk. [pende] "five"), but only rarely assimilate to liquids and segments of more distant sonority (Ferguson 1975: 178, 1 82ft). 9) Marked sonority orders brought about by other changes are subject to assimilation, dissimilation, metathesis, epenthesis, resyllabification, or some other repair strategy to reinstate a more optimal order andlor minimize the violation of the sonority hierarchy. The proper generalization is that the more distant the exceptions are from the preferred (unmarked) syllable structure, the more unstable they are and susceptible to adjustment. Since SH-motivated assimilations and epentheses have been well treated in the literature (from Hankamer & Aissen 1974 to Rice 1992:70-75; see especially Steriade 1982; Murray 1982) , some other changes are sketched in (3); see Grammont (1923); Ultan ( 1 971); Hock (1985); Stonham (1990). (3) SH-Motivated Metathesis and Resyllabification (a) OE setl- seld"throne", botl bold "BUIInng", etc. (details in --+

Brunner 1965, § 183)

7 Some varieties

of English retain the original dissyllabic [ayranz]; for the position of the vowel. compare the spelling irons and the German cognate Eisen.

7

TIIEOREIlCAL PREREQUISITES

(b) Slavic migla "cloud" - Czech mhla - Iunla (dissyllabic) mlha; -

(c)

(d) (e)

(1)

Czech ltice -lice - llice "spoon", etc. (KnUnsky 1976:67) Old Iranian (e.g.,Avestan) suxra- "red" .... Mid. Iran. *suxr Iran. surx; caxr(a)- - Iran. carx "wheel",pfra- - �arl"deep", asru- - ars "tear", etc. Zoque /y+pata/ "his coat" - pyata; /y+nanah/ "his mother" [nyanah] nanah IE *agr-6- (Gk. ayp6c;' agr-6-s "field") - Gmc. *00- - OE �cer "field" (- ACRE, and names: Whitt-aker [= Whit-field] "white field",etc.) Modem Ellglish examples of resyllabification (pris m, drizzle, etc.) are analyzed in Rice (1989) as [pn.zam], etc.

1.5 Some SH Effects in Ancient Greek In Greek there is abundant evidence for the operation of the SH (see esp. Steriade 1982). For the relation of Myc. ktoiniJ, a subdivision of the diimos (Alt.-Ion. liiilloC; demos) "deme", and KOlva kOini "common", cf. xallal khama{ "on the ground" : X6cJv khzhdn "earth" (for discussion of the recon structions, see Hajnal 1992). The root is *dh(e)gho m- (cf. Hitl tekan), which (regularly) became *zhkJIc" in Greek, metathesized to kftzhlin ,just as /ti-t(e)k0/ (cf. aor. inf. TEK-Etv tek-e n) is metathesized to t{-kt-a T1ICTw "I beget". Here metathesis serves to keep the constituents intact by conforming to the ideal order for segments in the SH (or independent principles of feature geometry) . If metathesis fails to apply, the violating stop is deleted, viz. *thkftamaf - xallal khama(, *tkoin,f- "oll'a koini. A clearer case of the action of the SH is found in Osthofrs Law (OL) (Osthoff 1881: 1593): "every long vowel in the environment before a resonant (i y, u w, m, n, r, I) followed by another consonant within the same word is shortened in Proto-Greek." In other words, shortening takes place before clusters in the coda position of the SH but not before onset clusters. While many of Osthofrs examples no longer hold up (see the extensive discussion in Peters 1980:306-319), other examples have been added. Ionic IlEoall�plTJ mesambr{e (Archilochus 122 .3 West +) "midday" (*mes-am(b)r-iyil) requires shortening of /aI before its fronting to /jj/� cf. Rix (1976 §64). For the under lying long vowel, ef. Dorie, Aeolic, Cyprian <1llap limar "day". Note also alternations li ke 6aul1a zhaiima "marvel" (*thaw-ma ) beside 6TJEOll al theeomai (Epic, Ion.) "I behold" (cf. Risch 1973:50). OL is unequivocally =

=

8 Att. l1£a1llllip(<< mesembrfii supposedly has 11 erestored from 1ll1ipll hemerii"day", but nothing precludes insertion of fbl in *(mes)ii.mri(y) ii after OL was lost in Attic.

8

ANCIENT SCRIPfS

AND PHONOLOGICAL KNOWLEOOE

required to derive fonns like (-)KpaLpa -kraira "head" from an immediate *kr ayra, in turn from *kr M-ayra by contraction (Peters 1980:228-286). While this is not the place for a detailed technical treatment of OL,and I plan to discuss the problematic fonns elsewhere, the essential point is that where a long vowel preceded an onset cluster of the SH, no shortening occurred. This is especially clear in KPllll VGI;' krmrn os (Il.+) "overhanging bank, clifr' (old derivative to KpEllallaL kr/mamai "I hang up" (cf. Risch 1973:98): -mn- is a typical onset cluster in the SH ( 1).9 Compare «\iov Cion "egg" from an immediate *C(y)y on « *i;iwy on < *i;iw(i)y om ; cf. Schindler 1969: 160-161, 165ff);1O -wy- , like -mn-, is an onset cluster according to the SH (or independent feature geomehy). ea.iJlla thaiina and IlEOall�p(ll mesambrfe point to OL at least as old as Ionian-Attic, before the fronting of laI to 1'iJ I. I see no reason to dispute Osthofrs dating. The fact that OL may have been reapplied again within the history of particular dialects only shows that it was a natural process that could apply anytime the over-long conditions for it were met Its extinction in Attic followed the numerous contractions that created literally hundreds of long vowels before coda clusters, and shortly thereafter, the long diphthongs were either shortened or lost their glide component, following which the whole length contrast was given up (details in Threatte 1980; Allen 1988). The evidence for OL as a natural process is (i) its widespread appearance in natural languages, e.g., Gennanic; partly Tocharian; Latin (see Allen 1973: 66-67), and (ii) its obvious origin in syllable patterns with the RITARDO of 'hypercharacterized' codas (cf. Allen 1973: 64-67, 177,222-223). 1.6 The Sonority H"l'tII'Chy, PG StipulDtiolll, and Syllable PUling Most accounts of syllabification (since Kiparsky 1979, Steriade 1982) have somehow employed the SH in their algorithm. If the SH is universal, the child comes equipped with this knowledge to a particular language. All the child must learn are the marked PG (Particular Grammar) exceptions to it and the PG restrictions on the unmarked sequences. The syllable parser needs access to the same infonnation plus a principle of maximizing onsets. That algebra is syllabified al.ge.bra in English follows from the fact that (i) 1ge is not a possible syllable by the SH and English contains no stipulation that 9 This phonological evidence is matched by word divisions in epigraphic alphabetic texts and syUabary conventions (Hennann 1923; Steriade 1982; Morpurgo Davies 1987:100-101; Woodard 1993, 1994; and chaps. 2 and 3 below). 10 While other scholars differ on the Indo-European reconstruction (e.g., Scbrijver 1991:30, posits *h2Ciliom), what concerns us here is only the immediate proto-Greek ancestor.

TIIEOREI1CAL PREREQUISITES

9

permits it� (2) bra is a possible syllable by the SH and English contains no stipulation disallowing it� and (3), as John Stonham points out to me (p.c.), *alg.eb.ra would also obey the SH but must be excluded by a principle that maximizes onsets over codas. Arabic, on the other hand, which syllabifies al.geb.ra, must contain a stipulation that disallows complex onsets (Steriade 1982� Levin 1985; Abu-Mansour 1987). As a parameter, one onset consonant is permitted and required in Arabic. Only stipulations or parameter settings must be learned by the child. Consequently, in the unmarked case (i.e., in the absence of a PG stipulation), the syllable parser will select the syllable structure that optimally conforms to the SH. This follows naturally from the conception of the syllable as Sonority ' Phrase' adopted here. Sensitivity to PG stipulations obviates the necessity of Steriade' s proposal ( 1982:84-85) to apply the onset rule before the coda rule in English (to get al.ge.bra) but the coda rule before the onset rule in languages that syllabify al.geb.ra. This solution, however ingenious, misses the point that al.geb.ra is the marked case (in Greek there was a shift from the marked to the unmarked syllabification; see Miller 1982, 1990),and makes an ordering problem out of what should be a question of PG permissible onset complexity. As noted independently by Leffel ( 1 985) and Levin ( 1 985), a version of X-bar theory predicts onsets over codas by the c-command relationship. Also, only the head is obligatory; some languages,like Arabic, may require an onset (as a parameter), but no language requires a coda· 1.7 Parameterr o/SyUabk Head Projection To illustrate the SH theory of the syllable, consider a word like simple. The parser sees /sympll (where y represents a lexically UNDERSPECIHED segment). The most sonorous segment (most vowel-like) is the y, which therefore projects as head, defining its vocalic/syllabic character. (In this system,as in that of Levin (1985),there is no need for a feature [±syllabic], since that follows trivially from its status as syllable head.) The s is picked up as onset. The remainder,/mpll, violates the SH,and no PG stipulation permits it, so another head must be projected (or the form is discarded). Of that string, the most sonorous segment in a position to syllabify is the I, which therefore projects a head. Next, since mp is not a permissible onset by the SH and no PG stipulation permits it, only p can be selected as onset,leaving the residue, m , as coda of the previous syllable. In French,where the m in simple signals a nasal vowel, word-edge -pi is permitted by stipulation (the /11 is devoiced as a repair),and the word is one syllable (the potential final [3] is irrelevant here). Consider an example from the Imdlawn Tashlhiyt dialect of Berber (Dell & Elmed!aoui 1985; cf. Levin 1985: 127ff; Kenstowicz 1994: 278ff). Thba

10

ANCIENf SCRIPfS AND PHONOLOOICAL KNOWIEOOE

"cover" (3sgF) has two syllables [th.ba]. Again, one can assume that the first head projected is that of the most sonorous segment laI. But then, thb is not a legitimate onset by the SH (stops precede continuants and glides), and, since Berber selects the parameter that disallows complex onsets, it is not permitted by any sort of PG stipulation. Consequently, only Ibl can be taken as onset and another head must project. Since Berber fixes the parameter that allows non-resonants to be syllable heads, IhI is the most sonorous segment of the remaining string, so it projects as head and It! is picked up as onset. When a word contains two or more segments of equal sonority, it is reasonable to assume that they project as heads simultaneously, viz. algebra, or Berber Iyldy/, which yields ildi "pull" (3sgM). Nevertheless, evidence that simul taneous projection is probably not a correct analysis will be presented in the next section. 1 .8 DirectkJntWty and Seg1lU!nt8 ofIdentical Sonority An interesting problem involves adjacent segments of identical sonority. It seems to be a frequently selected parameter that syllabification begins at the right edge and operates right to left (but left to right in Berber; cr. [ [bayn]n] > [baYl).n], not * [baynl).], "appear" [3pIM]). Consider (with syllable heads in boldface) Eng. we Iwy/, ye Iyy/, you Iyw /, your Iywrl (glides are higher on the SH than liquids and therefore project first), kiwi Ikywy/, and Kikuyu /kykwyw/. The last example is particularly interesting. The last Iwl is the first to project as head. Although the preceding Iwyl is a possible onset by the SH (or feature geometry), it is excluded, as are mn- and 11-, by the English Minimal Sonority Distance (§ 1 . 3), forcing Iyl as the sole onset. The next segment that can project as head is the Iwl in the middle, which naturally picks up the preceding /kI as its onset, (k)yk being an illicit onset by the SH and not provided for by any PG stipulation. 1 1 The rightmost syllabification condition is frequent in other lE languages, as well. While the particular details are complicated (different approaches in Miller 1974 and Schindler 1977), the general , or 'elsewhere' , rule for lE syllabification is that the rightmost of two segments of identical sonority is the head, as shown in (4). 1 1 John Stonham reminds me of words like hymn, solemn, in which I should falsely predict that the final 1nl should syllabify. However, since -mn is not a possible coda (by the SH or feature geometry), it is subject to repair, in this case, deletion of 1nl. The Minimal Sonority Distance (which he adduces) seems not to operate in codas (cf. -It, -ri, etc.). When we compare words like cumin and denim which can reasonably be taken as underlying IkywmnJ, Idenm/, we see that the rightmost nasal correctly syllabifies. Therefore, words like hymn constitute the 'particular' case as opposed to the 'elsewhere' case in Ikywmnl, etc.

rnEOREI1CAL PREREQUISITES

11

(4) Syllabification of Righbnost Segment of Equal Sonority in lE (a) Latin

1) Iywng+ol .... iungo [YUn go] "I join"

2) Iwynk+ol .... vinc a "I conquer"

(b) Sanskrit: Iyw-n-j+antil .... yunjdnti "they join" (c) Gothic: Iyysl .... jis "who"

Since it is typical for segments to syllabify in descending order of their sonority (Dell & Elmedlaoui 1985; cf. Kenstowicz 1994: 278ft) , in

(4a) and

(4b), the glides must be given a chance to syllabify (project head) before the nasal since glides are higher on the SH than nasals. Then, of the glides, the rightmost proj ects as syllable head first, as most clearly in

identity is absolute. Consider the development of Gk. ov�a from

(4c),

where the

onoma "name"

*h3nhynn (Beekes 1987: 1-6; Schrijver 1991 :24), if the reconstruction is *h3 was in fact a glide, they would both vocalize

correct. If the "laryngeal"

first, then the final 1nl, yielding the correct output (for laryngeals as syllable heads, see § 1 .7 above).

1.9. Marked Syllable Stmcture. and Change Given that syllable heads can also be marked in the lexicon (cf. Levin 1985),12 a simple explanation can be offered for shifts like OE Tiwes-dreg,

ME TiW(e)s-dreg, to NE [tyu]s-day (Jespersen 1948: 10lfO. The string Ityws/, with the leftmost glide prespecified as head (and linked to two timing slots on

the skeletal core), being marked (in the technical sense), is subject to loss of its lexical mark in language change. Loss of the lexical mark predicts that the default will take over and project the rightmost as head. 13 That is, Itywsl is replaced by Ityws/. Since the head is associated with two timing slots, the resulting change follows naturally.l4 One of the commonest forms for "she"

in ME, namely s(c)/w, admits of the same explanation. From OE s in, sb, one 1 2 John Stonham questions how this formulation can be any different from using the feature

[syllabic). In reality the problem is no different from that of a lexical mark for where tone or accent goes as opposed to a feature for tone or accent. A lexical diacritic is not a phonetic feature. For more discussion, see Levin (1985). 13 Rex Wallace (p.c.) objects that this is a description rather than an explanation. That is not true. Given that the motivation for the change was the marked character of the syllable structure, that predicts that the most natural change would be to lose the exception mark. 1be fannulation above states this regularization formally . 14 For the stability of length, predicted by the nonlinear model, compare transposition word games in Bakwiri (a Bantu language), in which length remains in the same place, though the vowel is different, e.g., JWlngd > ngaaJU "stomach" (Hombert 1986: 178, with data from other languages as well).

12

ANCIENT SCRIPfS AND PHONOLOGICAL KNOWlEDGE

could expect (at least as one possible development) a form S 19 (where 9 re presents an o-glide). Lexically, /syel requires the first glide to be prespecified as head. Loss of that lexical mark correctly predicts that the rightmost will syllabify, yielding [sye] , whence [§C] (length again being a property of head association). All of this was of course reinforced (or, according to Britton 1991, triggered exclusively) by h tb "she" > hyo > �o [xYe] I [§e], etc. (cr. Jespersen 1948:53). The traditional problem of Sanskrit sIV-ya-ti "sews" beside PPP sy O-la (Wackernagel 1896:91-92; Kurylowicz 1 968 §278) can be explained the same way,lS In s iV-ya-ti Isyw+ya+ti/, there is no problem since vy [wy] is a permissible onset by the SH. and therefore goes with the following syllable, leaving only the preceding y to project as head. In sy ii-ta- Isyw+ta+I, on the other hand, of the string Isywta/, (sy)wt is not a permissible onset. Therefore, la constitutes one syllable and Isywl must project another head. By the head right parameter, Iwl becomes the head. As usual, the association with two timing slots remains a property of the head. •

1 . 10 Conclusion Relating the syllable intrinsically to the SH goes a step beyond Leffel' s ( 1985) and Levin's (1985) theory of the syllable as Nuclear Phrase and seems to simultaneously explain a number of problems involving syllabification. The SH interacts with other factors, such as feature geometry, which deter mines place features, among other things. There are also different parameter settings (requirement of an onset, disallowance of complex onsets, allowance of segments other than vowels to be syllable heads, minimal sonority distance of more or less than two, etc.). The SH is directly involved in the word structure of natural languages, and conditions numerous changes to rectify deviant sequences. To conclude this excursus, it seems clear that the SH makes substantial predictions about the sequencing of segments universally and in Ancient Greek. Consequently, it should not be surprising to find the SH underlying the syllabic spelling systems of the Linear B and Cyprian scripts.

15 Rex Wallace objects to this formulation. The problem traditionally involves the historical development of the laryngeals. pointing to an immediate *siHw-yelo- vs. *syuH-Ui- , with metathesis of the laryngeal in one of the forms. My assumption is simpler and involves no metathesis. Historicall y . *siHw-yelo- : *siHw-to- should have given slVya- : * S lVta-. Alternatively. assuming the regular development in slIya- (given that wy- was a possible onset. in the sequence *yH. only Iyl could have syllabified). *syHw-t6- might have given something like *siHu-Ui-. whence *syutd-. or the like, in any event irregular. Even if there was a metathesis of the laryngeal (as a repair for the SH violation?), allowing a correct phonetic reflex. the problem remains a synchronic one of deriving syild- from sJl. .

2. THE LINEAR B SYLLABARY 2.0 Introduction The Minoans invented two syllabic writing systems, Cretan Hieroglyphic and Linear A, around the end of the -3rd millennium (cr. Heubeck 1979:23). The latest texts date to ca. -1450. All of the verifiably Greek texts are written in a syllabary known as Linear B, which was developed from Linear A around or after the -17th century and first attested ca. -1375 at Knossos (see Olivier 1986). It consists of p;] signs, some of which are rare. In addition 10 clay tablets of the Mycenaean era (most of which date 10 ca. -12(0), there are inscribed sealings, labels, and ca 150 painted vessels. Most numerous are the texts from Knossos (3000-4000 complete tablets plus several thousand frag ments) and Pylos (ca. I445). There are occasional documents from Mycenae, Thebes, Tiryns, Eleusis, and, since 1990, Khania (see, e.g., Olivier 1993). The Linear B tablets deal primarily with administrative matters involving inventories of personnel, supplies, equipment, parts of vehicles, etc., and are generally accompanied by a logogram and followed by a number. There are also tablets with tributes, ritual offerings, and land tenure, especially from Pylos. This chapter will demonstrate that the spelling conventions of the Linear B syllabary are based directly on the Sonority Hierarchy (SH) and presuppose a sophisticated (at least implicit) knowledge of the arrangement of segments according to the SH in order 10 spell words. 2. 1 Ungui,tic Inventory ofUnear B Sigm The 'Mycenaean' Linear B script has syllabic signs only for syllable nuclei (vowels: a, e, i, 0, u) and nuclei plus onsets (CV) [Consonant-Vowel], including a few complex onsets (CCV: pte-, dwe - , etc.; cf. also qe [kwe]/[gWe]/[khwe]; ze [tse]/[d7e]). To facilitate referencing from other chap ters, the inventory of signs in Linear B is reproduced in A ppendix B. The linguistic layout of Stephens & Justeson ( 1978:277) in Figure 1 demonstrates the constitution of this script. As emphasized by Stephens & Justeson, it is evident that the Linear B syllabary does not reflect the Greek phonological constrasts among voiced, voiceless, and aspirated stops, nor the distinction between III and Ir/. The

ANCIENT SCRIPfS

14

AND PHONOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE

Indo-European labialized velars ('labiovelars') */kw g W g whl were preserved in Mycenaean as Ikw g W kwh{ (see Thumb-Scherer 1959:334-335; Lejeune 1 972:43-53) and represented by the labialized series, perhaps fortuitously since Linear A also has signs for labialized and palatalized consonants.

plain C

I

vowels

1 i e a 0 u

STOps

1

labial p/blph

1

I

pi pe pa po pu 1 - pte PU2 1 - - dental tJth 1 ti te ta to tu 1 - - tja - 1 di de da do du 1 marked Cd> velar k/g/kh_1 ki ke ka ko ku 1 - ze za zo zu I NASALS marked CphLI

labia1 (m) dental Cn)

l mi me ma mo mu 1 ni ne na no nu UQUIDS IIr 1 ri re ra ro ru CONTINUANT sJ si se sa so su GLIDES 1 w l wi we wa wo 1 je ja jo ju Y

diphthongs ai au

i e a 0 u

1

1

1 - - - - - 1 1 - twe - two - 1 1 - dwe - dwo 1 -

1

qi qe qa qo

1 - - - - - 1 - - - 1 - - - - - 1 - - nwa 1 - - ra2 102 - 1 - - - I - 1 swi - swa -

-

-

-

I

- 1 - 1

- 1 - 1

1 - - - - - 1 -

- - 1

- - 1 -

- - 1

I _---"h'---_� I _ -_--= a,4 - - 1 -

labialized CW

palatalized CY

l i e a 0 u

- - I -

ra3 -

- - I

Fig. 1: Inventory of Mycenaean signs The precise nature of the z-series is disputed, but from the etymological point of view and from the evidence provided by their later reflexes, those signs are used for reflexes of Id! + Iy/, velars + Iy/, and initial * Iyl (Thumb Scherer 1959:336ff; Lejeune 1972: 100- 1 1 1). Their original value was likely palatalized, but the usual assumption is that in Mycenaean they represented affricates, perhaps 1f!> , dZ/ (cr. Morpurgo Davies 1988: 79-80, 105- 106; Ruijgh 1985: 105-126). Palmer ( 1980:3 lff), while taking the position that the series continued to represent some sort of palatalized stops (cr. Crespo 1985), actually suppOrts the affricate hypothesis. If indeed the ox-name a3zoro is Aiskhros "ugly", and assuming the equivalence of aketirija and azelirija for asketriai "(cloth) finishers", this would not be the only place in Greek where either a variable metathesis of sic to ks occurred (cf. alternations between o

(e) [= <27>]

NarE: The letter forms in this Appendix are essentially schematic and idealized

by place and date, see Sass (1988: 183-184), Morris (1988), LSAG (1990).

7

name

o

0

p

(cf. Naveh 1982: 25, 180). For details and actual forms

--.....

APPENDIX B The Linear B Syllabary

�I

A

,

f'

"

"7\

u

III

ai

E:j

m

.,..

t1

po

Pu

PU2

1*

T

q,

VI �

m • •

t

lif

di

do

du

�

i

�i

ki

ko

e

i

=t=

D

�

pa

pe

pi

C

*

A

�

�

da

de

a

fa

m ka

? qa

,

le

1: ke

.. © qe

ze

'r

r

\I

.,

ma

se

me

0

to

bl

tya

twe

i

""

dwe

P , au

qi

X

� two

dwo

1.0

.! si

r mi

I�

22

�

34

)(

1i 49

H

.5t\

56

79 (zu1)

�

so

su

�

"

mo

,.

47

ku

qo

t

18

19

or r

�

za

sa

ti

1]

mu

M

64 (swi 1)

�:

82 (swa?)

HI 63

� 83

APPENDIX B: LINEAR B SYlLABARY

1 14

i

'I' Y

na

ne

�

r

H

X

ra

ja

fit wa

re

ni

i ri

2

nwa

+

er

�

ro

4

ru

L,.

X

nu

f

wi

"

no

jo

je

we

"

rya

86

-T rai

•

ryo

VI

65 G u 1)

�

wo

NarE: For the fonts, I am indebted to Jean-Pierre Olivier who generously sent me a diskette of his linear B (bitmap) fonts for use with Microsoft application for "better quality" impression. I thank him also for advice on several linear B characters, such as the identity of sign 35 with 34, and the unique 89 "peint sur on vase, dans one inscription dont it n'est meme pas sOr qu'eUe soit en lin&Ue B" (letter of 15 Nov. 1993). For the grid, cc. Chadwick (1973:385), Hooker (1980:38), and especially §2. 1 above. Rare signs, for which no values have been established, are ignored here. Logograms are also ignored.

APPENDIX C The Cyprian SyJlabary (Masson 1961: Fig. I) .

a

e

l

0

U

;t(

�

*

�

"'(

.y

0

w

)A(

I

)'<

l'

r

S2

'It'

i

�

)�

I

':£

8

L

-

+

(u)

m

)V( -

� I�I

Y'

CD

�

:l.

7/

>:

p

f

�

t

�

t

5' f

�

�

)

k

1

�

Y

f\

s

V

�

� -

�

z

)'� ?

x

)(

n

T

�

M

�$

lea

(4

-

1T. ·

� :>*

REFERENCES Abney, Steven P. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Abu-Mansour, Mahasen. 1 987. A Nonlinear Approach to Arabic Syllabic Phonology, with special reference to Makkan. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Aorida, Gainesville, Aa.

Acta Mycenaea = Proceedings of the Fifth International Colloquium on Mycenaean Studies (Salamanca, 1970) . Ed. by Martin S. Rui�rez. 2 vols.

Salamanca: Univ. of Salamanca Press ( 1972). Aksu-K�, Ayhan A. & Dan I. Slobin. 1985. ''The Acq uisition of Turkish". Slobin 1985.839-878 (= chap.9). AlIen, W. Sidney. 1953. Phonetics in Ancient India. London: Oxford Univ. Press. ----------. 1973. Accent and Rhythm: Prosodic features of Latin and Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. ----------. 1988. Vox Graeca . 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. AlIport, Alan, Donald G. Mackay, Wolfgang Prinz & Eckart Scheerer, eds. 1987. Language Perception and Production: Relationships between listening, speaking. reading. and writing. Orlando, Aa.: Academic Press. Andersen, 0ivind. 1989. ''The Significance of Writing in Early Greece - A critical appraisal". Schousboe & Larsen 1989.73-90. Anderson, Stephen R. 1988. "Morphological Theory". Newmeyer 1988 #1, 136- 191. ----------. 1 992. A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. ----------. 1993. "Wackemagel's Revenge: Clitics, morphology, and the syn tax of second position". Language 69.68-98. Antonsen, Elmer H. 1972. ''The Prota-Germanic SylIabics (Vowels)". Van Coetsem & Kufner 1972. 1 17-140. ----------. 1975. A Concise Granunar of the Older Runic Inscriptions. TUbin gen: Max Niemeyer. ----------. 1 980a. "Den reldre fu�ark: En gudemes gave eIler et hverdags alfabet?". Maal og Minne 1980. 129- 143. ----------. 1980b. "On the Typology of the Older Runic Inscriptions". Scandi navian Studies 52. 1-15. ----------. 1981. "On the Syntax of the Older Runic Inscriptions". Michigan Germanic Studies 7.50-61.

1 18

REFERENCES

----------. 1982. "Zum Ursprung und Alter des germanischen Fullarks". Fest schrijt jiJr Karl Schneider ed. by Kurt R. Jankowsky & Emst S. Dick, 3-15. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ----------. 1983. "On Reading Runic Inscriptions". North-Western European lAnguage Evolution (NOWELE) 2.23-40. ----------. 1987. Review of Moltke (1985). Journal of English and Germanic Philology 86.384-387. ----------. 1988. "On the Mythological Interpretation of the Oldest Runic In scriptions". Languages and Cultures: Studies in honor ofEdgar C. Polo"" ed. by Mohammad Ali Jazayery & Wemer Winter, 43-54. Amsterdam & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. ----------. 1989. "The Runes: The Earliest Germanic Writing System". Senner 1989. 137-158. ----------. 1990. Review of Elliott (1989). German Studies Review 13.3 133 1 5. Arena, Renato. 1967. Le iscrizioni corinzie su vasi. Rome: Accademia Nazionale de Lincei. Bader, Fran�ise. 1962. Laformation des composes nominaux du latin. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Bagemihl, B ruce. 1987; "The Crossing Constraint and 'Backwards' Lan guages". Manuscript, Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. ----------. 199 1 . "Syllable Structure in Bella Coola". Linguistic Inquiry 22. 589-646. Baker, Mark C. 1985. ''The Mirror Principle and Morphosyntactic Explana tion". Linguistic Inquiry 16.373-415. ----------. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical junction changing. Chicago: Uni v. of Chicago Press. Bah1zs, Janos. 1965. ''The Forerunners of Structural Prosodic Analysis and Phonemics". Acta Linguistica (Academiae Hungaricae) 15.229-286. Bammesberger, Alfred, ed. 1991. Old English Runes and Their Continental Background. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. ----------. 1991. "Ingvaeonic Sound Changes and the Anglo-Frisian Runes". Bammesberger 1991.389-408. Barton, David. 1994. Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language. Cambridge, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell. Barton �k, Antonfn. 1966. Development of the Long-Vowel System in Ancient Greek Dialects. Opera Universitatis Pur/cynianae Brunensis: fac. philos. 106. Prague. ----------. 1971. "Greek Dialects in the Second Millennium B.C.". Eirene 9.4967. ----------. 1972. Classification of the West Greek Dialects at the Time about 350 B.C. Amsterdam & Prague. ----------. 1987. Prehistorie a protohistorie reckjch dialekt6. Bmo: Univerzita J. E. Purkyne. ----------. 1 991 . Grundziige der altgriechischen mundartlichen Friihge schichte. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Sprachwissenschaft

REfERENCES

1 19

Basb0ll, Hans. 1988. "Phonological Theory". Newmeyer 1988 #1,192-215. Bechtel, Friedrich. 1921-24. Die grkchischen Dialekte. 3 vols. Berlin: Weid mann.

Beekes, Robert S. P. 1971. "The Writing of Consonant Groups in Mycenae an". Mnemosyne 24.337-357. ----------. 1987. "The PIE Words for 'name' and 'me "'. Die Sprache 33. 1- 12. ----------, Alexander Lubotsky & J08 Weitenberg, eds. 1992. Rekonstruklion und Relative Chronologie. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Sprachwis senschaft Bell, Alan & Joan Bybee Hooper, eds. 1978. Syllables and Segments. Am sterdam: North-Holland. ----------. 1978a. "Issues and Evidence in Syllabic Phonology". Bell & Hooper 1978.3-22. Bellamy, Rufus. 1989. "Bellerophon 's Tablet". Classical Journal 84.2893(J7. , ----------. 1990. "Bellerophon: More Chimaeras?". Classical Journal 85. 179183. Bennett, William H. 1 972. "Prosodic Features in Proto-Germanic". Van Coetsem & Kufner 1972.99- 1 16. Bile, Monique. 1988. Le dialecte cretois ancien: Etude de la langue des inscriptions. Recueil des inscriptions posterieures aux le. Paris: Paul Geuthner. Birdsong, David. 1989. Metalinguistic Awareness and lnterlinguistic Com petence. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer. Bloch, Maurice. 1989. " Literacy and Enlightenment". Schousboe & Larsen 1989. 15-38. Bloom, Paul, ed. 1994. lAnguage Acquisition. Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press. BlUmel, Wolfgang. 1982. Die aiolischen Dialekte . G�ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Booij , Geert E. 1984. "Principles and Parameters in Prosodic Phonology". Butterworth et al. 1984.249-280. Brady, Susan A. & Donald P. Shankweiler, eds. 1991. Phonolog ical Processes in Literacy. Hillsdale, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Braune, Wilhelm & Ernst A. Ebbinghaus. 1961 . Gotische Grammatik. Ttibingen: Max Niemeyer. Bremmer, Rolf H., Jr. 1991. "Hermes-Mercury and Woden-Odin as Inventors of Alphabets: A neglected parallel". Bammesberger 1991.409-419. Britton, Derek. 1991 . "00 Middle English she, sho: A Scots solution to an English problem". North-Western European lAnguage Evolution (NOWELE) 17.3-51 . Brixhe, Claude. 1976. Le dialecte grec de Pamphylie. Documents et gram maire. Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve. ----------. 1979. "Sociolinguistique et langues anciennes". Bulletin de la Societl de Linguistique de Paris 74.237-259. ----------. " Palatalisations en grec et en phrygien: Probl�mes phon�tiques et graphiques". Bulletin de la Sociite de Linguistique de Paris 77.2(1)-249.

REFERENCES

120

Brugmann, Karl. 1876. "Nasalis Sonans in der indogermanischen Grund sprache". Curtius Studien 9.285-338, 469-471. Brunner, Karl. 1965. Altenglische Grammatik. 3rd ed. TUbingen: Max Niemeyer. Bubenfk, Vft. 1983. The Plwnological lnterpretation of Ancient Greek: A pandialectal analysis. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press. Buck, Carl Darling. 1955. The Greek Dialects. 2nd ed. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. Bugarski, Ranko. 1993. "Graphic Relativity and Linguistic Constructs". Scholes 1993.5- 18. B utteJWorth, Brian, Bemard Comrie & Dsten Dabl, eds. 1 984. Explanations for Language Universals. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Carlisle, Joanne F. 1991. "Questioning the Psychological Reality of Onset Rime as a Level of Phonological Awareness". Brady & Shankweiler 1991 .85-95. Carpenter, Michael. 1983. ''KI-TI-ME-NA and KE-KE-ME-NA at Pylos". Muws n.s. 18.81-88. Chadwick, John. 1 973. Documents in Mycenaean Greek. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. ----------. 1990. "Linear B and Related Scripts". Hooker 1990.136- 195. Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger. ---------- & Morris Halle. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row. Clements, George N. 1990. "The Role of the Sonority Cycle in Core Sylla bification". Papers in Laboratory Plwnology, voU: Between the grammar and physics ofspeech ed. by John Kingston & Mary E. Beckman, 283-333. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. ----------. 1991. "Place of Articulation in Consonants and Vowels: A unified theory". Working Papers of the Cornell Plwnetics Laboratory 5.77- 123. Comell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y. Coe, Michael D. 1992. Breaking the Maya Code. London: Thames & Hud .

son.

Cobo, Abigail c. 1 993 . "Nasalisation in English: Phonology or phonetics". Plwnology 10.43-81. Cook, B. F. 1990. "Greek Inscriptions". Hooker 1990.258-3 19. Coulmas, Aorian. 1989. The Writing Systems of the World. Oxford & Cam bridge, Mass.: Basil Blackwell. Cowgill, Warren. 1964. "The Supposed Cypriote Optatives duwdnoi and do/wi: With notes on the Greek infinitive fonnations". Language 40.344365. Crespo, Emilio. 1985. "Palatal Stops in Greek: Reconstruction or Mycenaean evidence?". Minos n.s. 19.91-103. Cross, Frank Moore. 1 989. "The Invention and Development of the Alpha bet". Senner 1989.77-90.

REFERENCES

121

Crothers, John. 1975. "Nasal Consonant Systems". Ferguson et al. 1975: 153166. Crystal, David, ed. 1987. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Part v: ''The Medium of Language: Writing and reading", 176-2 17. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Daniels, Peter T. 1992. ''The Syllabic Origin of Writing and the Segmental Origin of the Alphabet". Downing et al. 1992.83-1 10. . Davies, W; V. 1987. Egyptian Hieroglyphs. Berkeley & Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press. Davis, Garry W. & Gregory K. Iverson, eds. 1992. Explanation in Historical ,linguistics. Amsterdam &: Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Dell, Fran�is &: Mohamed Elmedlaoui. 1985. "Syllabic Consonants and Syl labification in Imdlawn Tashlhiyt Berber". Journal of African Languages and linguistics 7.105- 130. de Luce, Judith & Hugb T. Wilder, eds. 1983. Language in Primates: Perspectives and implications. New York: Springer. Derwing, Bruce L 1992. "Orthographic Aspects of linguistic Competence". Downing et al. 1992. 193-210. Devine, Andrew M. 1974a. "Aspiration, Universals, and the Study of Dead Languages". Working Papers in Linguistic Universals 15. 1-24. Stanford Univ. ----------. 1974b. "Etruscan Language Studies and Modem Phonology: The problem of the aspirates". Studi Etruschi 42, ser. 3,. 123- 151. DOE = Schwyzer (1923). Dietrich, Manfred &: Oswald Loretz. 1 988. Die Keilalphabete: Die phllnizisch-kanaanticis hen und altarabischen Alplwbete in Ugarit. MUnster: Ugarit-Verlag. Diringer, David. 1968. The Alphabet: A key to the history!!lmankind. 3rd ed., revised with the assistance of Reinhold Regensburger, 2 vols. New York: Funk & Wagnalls. Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria & Edwin Williams. 1987. On lheDefinition of Word. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. DMG = Chadwick (1973). Downing, Pamela, Susan D. Lima &: Michael Noonan, eds. 1 992. The linguistics ofLileracy. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Dubois, Laurent. 1988. Recherches sur le dialect Arcadien. Louvain-La Neuve: Peeters. Duhoux, Y ves. 1983. Introduction aux dialectes grecs anciens: Problemes et �thodes. Recueil de te:xtes traduits. Louvain-Ia-Neuve: Cabay. " ---------- . 1988. "Mycenien et �criture grecque . Linear B: A 1984 survey, 7 74. Louvain-La-Neuve: Peeters. DUwel, Klaos. 1 9681 1983. Runenkunde. Stuttgart: Metzler. (Rev. ed. , 1983.) EO = Guarducci (1967-1974). Egli, Urs. 1987. "Stoic Syntax and Semantics". Taylor 1987. 107-132. Ehri, Linnea C. 1993. "How English Orthography Influences Phonological Knowledge as Children Learn to Read and Spell". Scholes 1993.2143.

122

REFERENCES

Elliott, Ralph W. V. 1989. Runes: An introduction. 2nd ed. New York: St. Martin's. Ernmorey, Karen & Victoria Fromkin. 1988. ''The Mental Lexicon". New meyer 1988 #111,129- 149. Erbse. Hartmut. ed. 1969-. Sclwlia Graeca in Homeri llilulem . Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Faber. Alice. 1981. "Phonetic Reconstruction". Glossa 15.233-262. ----------. 1990. "Interpretation of Orthographic Forms". Linguistic Clwnge and Reconstruction Metlwdology ed. by Philip Baldi. 619-637. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. ----------. 1992. "Phonemic Segmentation as Epiphenomenon: Evidence from the history of alphabetic writing". Downing et al. 1992. 1 1 1-134.

----------. 1993. Semitic Sibilants: A study in comparative lexicography.

Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. Fell, Christine E. 1991. "Runes and Semantics". Bammesberger 1991. 195-

229.

Ferguson, Charles A. 1975. "Universal Tendencies and 'Normal' Nasality". Ferguson et al. 1975. 175-196. ----------, Larry M. Hyman & John J. Ohala, eds. 1975.Nasdlfest: Papers from a symposium on nasals and nasalization. Stanford: Dept. of Linguistics, Stanford Univ. Finnegan, Ruth. 1988. Literacy and Orality. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Fowler, Anne E. 1991. "How Early Phonological Development Might Set the Stage for Phoneme Awareness". Brady & Shankweiler 1991.97-1 17. Fromkin, Victoria A. 1988. "Grammatical Aspects of Speech Errors". New meyer 1988 #Il, 1 17- 138. Fudge, Erik C. 1987. "Branching Structure Within the Syllable". Journal of

Linguistics 23.359-377.

---------. 1 989. "Sy1JabJe Structure: A reply to Davis". Journal ofLinguistics

25.219-220.

Fulk, Robert D. 1987. "Reduplicating Verbs and Their Development in Northwest Germanic". Beitriige zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (T) 109. 159- 178. Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. 1978. "On the Correlation of Stops and Fricatives in a Phonological System". Greenberg et al. 1978 #11.9-46. Garc!a-Ram6n, Jose L. 1985. ''The Spellings Ta and Ta-ra for Inherited ·Tr in Mycenaean: Sound law, phonetic sequence and morphological factors at work". Minos n.s. 19. 195-226. GD = Bechtel (192 1-24). Gelb, Ignace J. 1963. A Study of Writing. 2nd ed' Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. Gessman, Albert A. 1975. The Gift from Tlwth: The evolution of writing in the West. Tampa: Univ. of South Florida. Gleitman, L. R. , H. Gleitman, B . Landau & E. Wanner. 1988. "Where Learning Begins: Initial representations for language learning". Newmeyer

1988 #111, 150-193.

REFERENCES

123

Goldsmith. John. 1988. Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology . Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Gombert, Jean £mile. 1992. Metalinguistic Development. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. (French original. 1990.) Gordon. Arthur E. 1969. "On the Origins of the Latin Alphabet: Modem views". California Studies in Classical Antiquity 2. 157- 170. ----------. 1973. The Letter Names of the Latin Alphabet. Berkeley & Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press. Gough. Philip B Linnea C. Ehri & Rebecca Treiman, eds. 1992. Reading Acquisition. Hillsdale, N.!.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gough, Philip B . & Margaret A. Walsh. 1991. "Chinese, Phoenicians, and the Orthographic Cipher of English". Brady & Shankweiler 1991. 199-209. Grammont, Maurice. 1923. "L·interversion" Avr(6wpov: FestschriJt Jacob .•

.

•

Wackernagel zur Vollendung des 70. Lebensjahres am 11. December 1923,

72-TI. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

---------. 1933. Traite de phonetique. Paris: Delagrave. (Repr 1965.) .•

Greenberg. Joseph H., Charles A. Ferguson & Edith A. Moravczik. eds. 1978. Universals ofHuman Language. 4 vols. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press. Guarducci. Margherita, ed. 1935-50. Inscriptiones Creticae. 4 vols. Rome: Libreria dello Stato. ----------. 1967-78. Epigrafia Greca. 4 vols. Rome: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato. Guion, Susan Guignard. 1994. ''The Syllable Structure of Arcado-Cyprian". Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Boston. Manuscript, Univ. of Texas, Austin. . Hajnal, lvo. 1992. "Griechisch xalla( - ein Problem der Rekonstruktion?". Beekes et al. 1992.207-220. Halle, Morris. 1962. "Phonology in Generative Grammar". Word 18.54-72. ---------- 1973. "Prolegomena to a Theory of Word Fonnation". Linguistic

Inquiry 4.3-16. ----------. 1992. "Phonological Features". International Encyclopedia of Linguistics ed. by William Bright, vol. Ill, 207-212. Oxford: Oxford Univ.

Press. Harris, John. 1985. Phonological Variation and Change. Cambridge: Cam bridge Univ. Press. Harris, Roy. 1986. The Origin of Writing . LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court. Harris, William V. 1989. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press. Haugen, Einar. 1972. First Grammatical Treatise: The earliest Germanic phonology . 2nd rev. ed. London: Longman. (First ed., Baltimore, Md.: Waverly Press, 1950.) Healey. John F. 1990. The Early Alphabet. Berkeley & Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press. (Also in Hooker 1990. 197-257.) Henderson, Edmund H. 1992. "The Interface of Lexical Competence and Knowledge of Written Words". Templeton & Bear 1992.

124

REFERENCES

Hermann, Eduard. 1 923 . Silbenbildung im Griechischen und in den anileren indogermanischen Sprachen. Gt>ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Heubeck, Alfred. 1979. Schrift. Gtittingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. --- -- - --. 1 982. "L'origine della Lineare B". Studi Micenei ed Egeo-AnaJolici 23. 195-207. ----------. 1986. "Die WUrzburger Alpbabettafel". Wiinburger Jahrbiicherfor AltertwnswissenschsaJt 12.7-20. Hock, Hans Henrich. 1973. "00 the Phonemic Status of Germanic E and r. Kachru et al. 1973.3 19-351 . ----------. 1975. "Reversal of Sound Change and Regular Dissimilation". Pa per presented at the Summer Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America. ----------. 1985. "Regular Metathesis". Linguistics 23.529-546. Hollifield, Patrick Henry. 1980. "The Phonological Development of Final Syllables in Germanic". Die Sprache 26. 19-53 , 145- 178. With Addenda and Corrigenda in Die Sprache 30.73-79 ( 1984). Hombert, Jean-Marie. 1986. "Word Games: Some implications for analysis of tone and other phonological constructs". Ohala & Jaeger 1986. 175-186. Hooker, James T. Im. The lAnguage and Text o/ the Lesbian Poets. Inns bruck: Innsbrucker Beitrtige zur Sprachwissenschaft. ----------. 1 979. The Origin 0/ the Linear B Script. (Minos Supplement, 8.) Salamanca. ----------. 1980. Linear B: An introduction. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press. ---------- ed. 1990. Reading the Past: Ancient writing from cuneiform to the alphabet. Berkeley & Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press. Hopper, Vincent Foster. 1969. Medieval Number Symbolism. 2nd ed. New York: Columbia Univ. Press. Hospers, Johannes H. 1 980. "Grapbemics and the History of Phonology". Historiographia Linguistica 7.351-359. IC = Guarducci ( 1935-50). ICS = Masson (1961, 1983). ICV = Arena ( 1967). IG = Inscriptiones Graecae consilio et auctoritate Academiae litterarum regiae Borussicae editae. Berlin. I lievski, Petar Hr. & Ljiljana Crepajac, eds. 1987. Tractata Mycenaea: -

-

Proceedings o/the Eighth International Colloquium on Mycenaean Studies.

Skopje: Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Immerwahr, Henry R. 1990. Attic Script: A survey. Oxford: Clarendon. Inkelas, Sharon. 1990. Prosodic Constituency in the Lexicon. New York: Garland Press. Insley, John. 1991. ''The Scandinavian Runic Inscriptions of the Older Ful>ark and Old English Personal Names". Bammesberger 1991.309-334. . Iverson, Gregory. 1987. "On Glottal Width Features". Lingua 60.33 1-339. Jacobsen, Thorkild. 1974. "Very Ancient Texts: Babylonian grammatical texts". Studies in the History 0/ Linguistics: Traditions and paradigms ed. by Dell Hymes, 41-62. The Hague: Mouton.

REFERENCES

125

Jacobsohn, Hermann. 1910. "Aeolische Doppe)consonanz: Zur Sprache und Verstechnik der homerischen Epos". Hermes 45.67- 124, 161 -219. Jakobson, Roman. 1930. "Principes de phonologie historique". Jakobson 1962.202-220. ----------. 1 937. "On Ancient Greek Prosody". Jakobson 1962.262-27 1. ----------. 1962. Selected Writings. Vol.I. Phonological Studies. The Hague: Mouton. (2nd extended ed., 1971.) Jeffery, Lilian Hamilton. 1961. The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece. Oxford: Clarendon. ---------- & Alan W. Johnston. 1990. The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece. 2nd ed. Ibid. Jenness, Diamond. 1927. "Notes on the Phonology of the Eskimo Dialect of Cape Prince of Wales, Alaska". International Journal of American Lin guistics 4. 168-180. Jensen, Hans. 1969. Sign, Symbol and Script. Transl. by George Unwin. 3rd ed. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. Jespersen, Otto. 1904. Lehrbuch der Phonetik. Berlin & Leipzig: B . G. Teubner. ----------. 1948. A Modern English Grammar: On historical principles. Vol.I. 2nd ed. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard. (Repr. London: Alien & Unwin, 1965.) Joseph, Brian D. 1992. "Diachronic Explanation: Putting speakers back into the picture". Davis & I verson 1992. 123- 144. Justeson, John S. 1988. Review of Sampson (1985). Language 64.421-425. Justus, Carol F. 1993. "Implications of the Evolution of Writing". Dia chronica 10.97-1 10. K = Krause ( 1966). Kachru, Braj B., Robert B. Lees, Yakov Malkiel , Angelina Pietrangeli & Sol Saporta, eds. 1973. Issues in Linguistics: Papers in honor of Henry and Renee Kahane . Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press. Kaisse, Elaine. 1985. Connected Speech: The interaction qf syntax and phonology. Orlando, Aa.: Academic Press. Kawasaki, Haruko. 1986. "Phonetic Explanation for Phonological Universals: The case of distinctive vowel nasalization". Ohala & Jaeger 1986.81- 103. Kemp, Alan. 1987. "The Tekhne Grammatike of Dionysius Thrax. English translation with introduction and notes". Taylor 1987. 169-189. Kenstowicz, Michael. 1 994. Phonology in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Kim, Chin-Wu. 1970. "A Theory of Aspiration". Phonetica 2 1 . 107- 1 16. Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. "Phonological Representations". Three Dimensions of Linguistic Theory, ed. by Osamu Fujimura, 1-126. Tokyo: Institute for Ad vanced Study of Language. ----------. 1 979. "Metrical Structure Assignment is Cyclic". Linguistic Inquiry 10.42 1-441. ---------- & Lise Menn. 1977. "On the Acquisition of Phonology". Mac namara 1 977.47-78.

126

REFERENCES

Kirshenblatt-Gimblett. Barbara, ed 1976. Speech Play. Philadelphia: Vniv. of Pennsylvania Press. Koemer, E. F. Konrad. 1993. ''The Problem of Metalanguage in Linguistic Historiography". Studies in Language 17. 1 1 1- 134. Kortlandt. Frederik. 1991. 'The Germanic Seventh Class of Strong Verbs". North-Western European Language Evolution (NOWELE) 18.97-100. KnUnsky. Jitf. 1976. Papers in General linguistics . The Hague: Mouton. Krause. Wolfgang. 1966. Die Runeninschrijten im dlteren Futhark. Mit Bei trigen von Herbert Jankuhn. 2 vols. OOttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Aclll Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1947. "La nature des prores dits «:analogiques» linguistica 5. 15-37 (Copenhagen). (Repr. in Kurylowicz 1960:66-86.) ---------- 1952. "The Germanic Vowel System". Biuletyn Polskiego Towa rzystwa J �koznawczego 1 1.50-54. ----------. 1960. Erquisses linguistiques. Wroclaw & Krak6w: Nauka. ----------. 1964. The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter. ----------. 1968. Indogermanische Grammatik. VoI.II. Aklent-Ablaut. Heidel berg: Carl Winter. Larsen, Mogens Trolle. 1989. "What They Wrote on Clay". Schousboe & Larsen 1989. 121- 148. Laziczius, Gyula 1966. Selected Writings. Ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok. The Hague: Mouton. Leffel, Katherine. 1985. "X-bar Theory and Phonology". Manuscript, Univ. of Aorida, Gainesville, Aa Lehiste, Use. 1970. Suprasegmenlllls . Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. l..ejeune, Michel. 1972. Phonitique historique du mycenien et du grec ancien. Paris: Klincksieck. ----------. 1974. Manuel de la langue venete. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Levin, Juliette. 1985. A Metrical Theory of Syl/abicity . Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Lewis, Henry & Holger Pedersen. 1961. A Concise Comparative Celtic Grammar. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing Morphology: Word formation in syntactic theory. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. Lounsbury, Aoyd G. 1 989. ''The Ancient Writing of Middle America". Sen ner 1989.203-237. Lowe, Pardee, Jr. 1972. "Germanic Word Formation". Van Coetsem & Kufner 1972.2 1 1 -237. LSAG = Jeffery ( 1961), Jeffery & Johnston ( 1990). Lundberg, Ingvar. 1991. "Phonemic Awareness Can Be Developed without Reading Instruction". Brady & Shankweiler 1991 .47-53. Macnamara, John, ed. Im. LAnguage Learning and Thought. New York: Academic Press. MacWhinney, Brian. 1985. "Hungarian Language Acquisition as an Exempli fication of a General Model of Grammatical Development". Slobin 1985. 1069- 1 155. ".

REFERENCES

127

Mahulkar, D. D. 198 1 . The PratiJ8khya Tradition and Modern Linguistics. Barcxla: Maharaja Sayajirao Univ. of Baroda Press. Mann, Virginia A. 1991. "Are We Taking Too Narrow a View of the Condi tions for Development of Phonological Awareness?". Brady & Shankweiler 1991 .55-64. Maranzana, Eisa. 1993. The Cognitive Consequences of Literacy: A linguis tic mythology. Manuscript, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Fla Marchand, James W. 1 959. "Names of Germanic Origin in Latin and Romance Sources in the Study of Germanic Philology". Names 7. 167-181. Masson, Olivier. 1961. us inscriptions chypriotes syllabiques: Recueil critique et commente. Paris: FA. de Boccard. (Rev. ed., Athens: Ecole Fran�se, 1983.) ----------. 1983. "Remarques sur quelques passages de la tablette chypriote d'ldalion (ICS 217)". Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 78.261-281. McCarthy, John J. 1985, "Speech Disguise and Phonological Representation in Amharic". V an der Hulst & Smith 1985:305-3 12. Meid, Wolfgang. 1 967. Germanische SprachwissenschaJt. Vol.III. Wort bildungslehre. Sammlung Gtlschen 1218. Berlin: Waiter de Gruyter. Meillet, Antoine. 1903. "De la diff�renciation des phonemes". Memoires de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 12. 14-34. Meister, Richard. 1894. "Zu den Regeln der kyprischen Silbenschrift". Indo germanische Forschungen 4. 175- 186. Millard, A. R. 1986. ''The Infancy of the Alphabet". World Archaeology 17. 390-398. Miller, D. Gary. 1974. "Vocalization of Resonants in Indo-European". Manuscript, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. ----------. 1976a. "Glide Deletion, Contraction, Attic Reversion, and Related Problems of Ancient Greek Phonology". Die Sprache 22. 137- 156. ----------. 1 976b. "Liquids plus s in Ancient Greek". Glotta 54. 159- 172. ----------. 1976c. "The Transformation of a Natural Accent System: The case of the Ancient Greek enclitics". Glotta 54. 1 1-24. ---------- . 1977. "Language Change and Poetic Options". Language 53.21-38. ----------. 1978. ''Time and Word-Length as Meta-Determiners of Phonological Change". Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Boston. ----------. 1981. ''The History of the Labiovelars in Greek". Paper presented at the A merican Philological Association meeting, San Francisco (28 Dec.). --- 1982. Homer and the Ionian Epic Tradition: Some phonic and phonological evidence against an Aeolic 'phase '. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Sprachwissenschaft. ----------. 1986. Review of Bubenfk (1983). Phoenix 40. 104- 109. ----------. 1990. "Homer and Writing: Use and misuse of epigraphic and linguistic evidence". Classical 10urnal 85. 171- 179. ----------. 1 993. Complex Verb Formation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. -----

-.

128

REFERENCES

Miller, Patricia. 1972. "Some Context-Free Processes Affecting Vowels". Ohio State University Working Papers in linguistics 1 1 . Columbus, Ohio. Mithun, Marianne. 1989. "The Acquisition of Polysynthesis". Journal 0/ Child lAnguage 16.285-3 12. Moltke, Erik. 1985. Runes and Their Origin. Denmark and Elsewhere. Copenhagen: The National Museum of Denmark. Morais, Jos�. 1991. "Constraints on the Development of Phonemic Aware ness". Brady & Shankweiler 1991 .5-27. Morpurgo Davies, Anna. 1972. "Greek and Indo-European Semi-Consonants: Mycenaean u and w". Acta Mycenaea, 80-121. - ---------. 1986. "R:>rms of Writing in the Ancient Mediterranean World". The Written Word ed. by G. Baumann, 51-77. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. ----------. 1987. "Mycenaean and Greek Syllabification". Ilievski & Crepajac 1987.91- 104. ----------. 1988. "Mycenaean and Greek Language". linear B: A 1984 survey, 75- 125. Louvain-La-Neuve: Peelers. ---------- & Yves Duhoux. 1984. "Linear B: A survey". Proceedings 0/ the Mycenaean Colloquium 0/ the Vlllth Congress 0/ FIEC (Dublin 1 984). Louvain-Ia-Neuve: Cabay (1985). Morris, Richard L 1985. "The Etymology of NwG run 0-". Beitrtige zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und literatur 107.344-358. ---------. 1988. Runic and Mediterranean Epigraphy. North-West European lAnguage Evolution (NOWELE) Suppl. Vol. 4. Odense: Odense Univ. Press. Murray, Robert W. 1982. "Consonant Cluster Developments in Pili". Folia linguistics Historica 3:2. 163- 184. ----------. 1988 . Phonological Strength and Early Germanic Syllable Struc ture. Munich: Wilhelm Fink. Naveh, Joseph. 1982. Early History o/the AJphabet: An introduction to West Semitic epigraphy and palaeography. !..eiden: E. J. Brill. Neumann. Gtinter (with Klaus Stiewe). 1974. "Zu den Hexametern der kyprischen Inschrift ICS 264". Kadmos 13. 146- 155. Newmeyer, Frederick J., ed. 1988. linguistics: The Cambridge survey. 4 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Niang, Mamadou. 1993. "Syllable 'Sonority' Hierarchy and Stress Patterns in Pulaar: A metrical approach". Manuscript, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, Ill. Nilsson. Martin P. 1915. "Die Obernahme und Entwickelung des Alphabets durch die Griechen". Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser 1 .3ff (= Opuscula Selecta, 1029ff. Lund: Gleerup, 1952). (Repr. in Pfohl l968. 172- 196. whence our citations.) Nussbaum, Alan J. 1976. Caland's lAw and the Caland System. Ph.D. disser tation, Harvard Univ., Cambridge, Mass. Odenstedt, Bengt. 1989. "Further Reflections on the Meldorf Inscription". Zeitschriftflir deutsches Altertum und deutsche literatur 1 1S.77-SS. ----------. 1990. On the Origin and Early History 0/ the Runic Script: Typology and graphic variation in the older jutluz,k. Uppsala: Acta Academiae Regiae Gustavi Adolphi.

REFERENCES

129

---------. 1991. "A New Theory of the Origin of the Runic Script: Richard L. Monis's book Runic and Mediterranean Epigraphy". Bammesberger 1991. 359-387. Ohala, John J. & Jeri J. Jaeger, eds. 1986. Experimental Phonology. Orlando, Fla: Academic Press. Olivier, Jean-Pierre. 1986. "Cretan Writing in the Second Millennium S.C. ". World Archaeology 17.377-389. ----------. 1993. "KN 1 15 = KH 1 15. Un m�me scribe a Knossos et a La Ca n�: Au MR IIIB: Du sou�n a la certitude". Bulletin de Correspondance Hellinique 1 17. 19-33. Olson, David R. 1994. The World on Paper: The conceptual and cognitive implications o/writing and reading . Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. - --- ------ & Nancy Torrance, eds. 1991. Literacy and Orality. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. ORI = Antonsen (1975). Osthoff, Hermann. 1881. Review of Gustav Meyer, Griechische Grammatik (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1880). Philologische Rundschau 1 . 1 5871598. Page, R. L 1987. Runes. Berkeley & Los Angeles:Univ. of California Press. Palmer, Leonard R. 1 980. The Greek Language. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press. Patel, P. G. 1993. "Ancient India and the Orality-Literacy Divide Theory". Scholes 1993.199-208. Pedersen, Holger. 1939. "Zur Tbeorie der altgriechischen Palatalisierung". Reed 1964.289-291. Pepperberg, Irene M. 1990a. "Referential Mapping: Attaching functional significance to the innovative utterances of an African grey parrot (psittacus erithacus)". Applied Psycholinguistics 1 1.23-44. � - 1990b. "Cognition in an African Grey Parrot (Psittacus erithacus): Further evidence for comprehension of categories and labels". Journal 0/ Comparative Psychology 104.41-52. ----------. 1991. ""Referential Communication with an African Grey Parrot". Harvard Graduate Society Newsletter (Spring. 1991), 1-4. Peters, Martin. 1980. Untersuchungen zur Vertretung der indogermanischen Laryngale im Griechischen. Vienna: bsterreichische Akademie der Wissen schaften. Pfohl, Gerhard. 1966. Griechische Inschriften als Zeugnisse des privaten und (j.ffentlichen Lebens. Munich: Emst Heimeran. ----------, ed. 1968. Das Alphabet: Entstehung und Entwicklung der griechi schen Schrift. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. ----------. 1969. ""Die wtesten Inschriften der Griechen". Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 7.7-25. ----------, ed. 1972. Inschriften der Griechen: Grab-. Weih-. und Ehrenin schriften. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche B uchgesellschaft. ----------, ed. Im. Das Studium der griechischen EpigraphiJc. Ibid. ------

--

.

130

REFERENCES

Polom6, Edgar. 1991. ''The Names of the Runes". Bammesberger 1991 .42 1 438. Poser, William J. 1992. ''The Structural Typology of Phonological Writing". Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Unguistic Society of America (Philadelphia). Powell, Bmy B. 1988. The Dipylon Oinochoe and the Spread of Literacy in Eighth-Century Athens". Kadmos 27.65-86. ----------. 1 99 1 . Homer and the Origin of the Greek Alphabet. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Powell, Marvin A. 1981. ''Three Problems in the History of Cuneiform Wri ting: Origins, direction of script, literacy". Visible lAnguage 15.419-440. Praetorius, Franz. 1902. "Zur Geschichte des griechischen Alphabets". Zeit schrift der deutschen morgenlandischen Gesellschaft 56.676-680. ----------. 1908. "Zum semitisch-griechischen Alphabet". Zeitschrift der deu tschen morgenllindischen Gesellschaft 62.283-288. Prakash, P. , D. Rekha, R. Nigam & P. Karanth. 1993. "Phonological A wareness, Orthography, and Literacy". Scholes 1993.55-70. Raghavendra, Parimala & Laurence B. Leonard. 1989. ''The Acquisition of Agglutinating Languages: Converging evidence from Tamil". Journal of Child lAnguage 16.3 13-322. Read, Charles. 1991. "Access to Syllable Structure in Language and Learn ing". Brady & Shankweiler 1991 . 1 19- 124. Reed, Carroll E., ed. 1964. Etudes phonolgiques didiees a la memoire de M. le Prince N. S. TrubetzJcoy. University, Ala.: Univ. of Alabama Press. (Ori ginally Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Prague 8, 1939.) Rice, Keren D. 1989. "On Eliminating Resyllabification into Onsets". West Coast Conference on Foreign lAnguages (WCCFL) 8.33 1-346. ----------. 1 992. "On Deriving Sonority: A structural account of sonority relationships". Phonology 9.61-99. Ringe, Donald A., Jr. 1984. The Perfect Tenses in Greek InscriptWns. Ph.D� dissertation. Yale Univ. , New Haven, Conn. Risch, Emst. 1973 . Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache. 2nd ed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter ( 1974). Rix. Helmut. 1976. Historische Grammatik des Griechischen: lAut- und Formenlehre . Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. . Roeper, Thomas. 1 988. "Grammatical Principles of First Language Ac quisition: Theory and evidenge". Newmeyer 1988 #11,35-52. Ruijgh. Comelis J. 1 957. L'Eliment acheen dam la langue epique. Assen: Van Gorcum.

----------. 1967. Etudes sur la grammaire et le vocabulaire du grec mycinien. Amsterdam: Hakkert.

----------. 1985. "Problemes de philologie mycenienne". Minos 1 9. 1O5- 167.

Saenger. Paul. 199 1 . "The Separation of Words and the Physiology of Reading". Literacy and Orality ed. by D. R. Olson & N. Torrance, 198-214. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

REFERENCES

131

Sampson, Geoffrey. 1 985. Writing Systems: A linguistic introduction. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univ. Press. Sapir, Edward. 1949 [ 1 933]. "The Psychological Reality of Phonemes". Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in lAnguage, Culture and Personality ed. by David G. Mandelbaum, 46-60. B erkeley & Los Angeles: Univ. of California Press. Sass, Benjamin. 1988. The Genesis of the Alphabet and its Development in the Second MiUennium B.C. Wiesbaden: Hanassowitz. Saussure. Ferdinand de. 1878. Memoire sur le systeme primitif des voyel/es dans les langues indo-europiennes. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner. (Repr. Hildes heim: Georg Olms. 1968.) Scalise. Sergio. 1984. Generative Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris. Schane, Sanford A. 1971. "The Phoneme Revisited". lAnguage 47.503-52 1 Schindler, Jochem. 1969. "Die idg. Warter ftir 'Vogel ' und 'Ei'''. Die Spra che 15. 144- 167. ----------. Im. "Notizen zum Sieversschen Gesetz". Die Sprache 23.56-65. Schmandt-Besserat, Denise. 1 992. Before Writing. VoU: From counting to cuneiform. Austin: Univ. of Texas Press. Schmitt. Rtidiger. Im. Einftihrung in die griechischen Dialekte. Darmstadt Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. .

Scholes, Robert l , ed. 1993.

lituacy and Language Analysis. Hillsdale, N ol.:

Lawrence Erlbaum. ----------. 1 993a. "In Search of Phonemic Consciousness: A follow-up on Ehri". Scholes 1993.45-53. ----------. 1993b. "On the Orthographic Basis of Morphology". Scholes 1993. 73-95. ---------- & Brenda J. Willis. 1990. "On the Orthographic Basis of Phonemic Segments in Linguistic Competence and Performance". lAnguage Sciences 12.33 1-343. Schousboe, Karen & Mogens Trolle Larsen, eds. 1 989. literacy and Society. Copenhagen: Akademisk. Forlag. Schrijver, Peter. 1991. The Reflexes of the Proto·lndo-European lAyrngeals in lAtin. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi. Schwyzer. Eduard, ed. 1923. Dialectorum Graecarum Exempla Epigraphica Potiora. Leipzig: Hirzel. (Repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1 960.) ----------. 1939-7 1 . Griechische Grammatik. 4 vols. Munich: Beck.. (I: 4th ed 1968� II-IlI: 3rd ed., 1966-68.) SEG = Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecwn. Leiden. Segert. Stanislav. 1993. "Cuneiform Alphabets from Syria and Palestine". Journal ofthe American Oriental Society 1 13.82-9 1 . Senner, Wayne M., 00 . 1989. The Origins of Writing. Lincoln. Neb.: Univ. of Nebraska. Sherman, Donald. 1975. "Stop and Fricative Systems: A discussion of paradigmatic gaps and the question of language sampling". Working Papers on lAnguage Universals ( WPLU) 17. 1-3 1. Stanford, Calif. : Stanford Univ. .•

132

REFERENCES

Sievers, Eduard. 1893. GrundzQge der Plwnetik. 4th ed. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel. Slobin, Dan I., ed. 1985. The Crosslinguistic Study of lAnguage Acquisition. 2 vols. Hillsdale, N.l. : Lawrence Erlbaum. ----------. 1985a. "Crosslinguistic Evidence for the the Language-Making Capacity". Slobin 1985 #11,1 157-1256. Smyth. Herbert Weir. 1894. The Sounds and Inflections of the Greek Dialects: Ionic. Oxford: Clarendon. ----------. 1956. Greek Grammar. Rev. ed. by Gordon Messing. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press. Sommerstein, Alan H. 1973. The Sound Pattern of Ancient Greek. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. SPE = Chomsky & Halle (1968). Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morplwlogical Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell . Stampe. David L . 1 973a. A Dissertation on Natural Phonology . Ph.D. dissertation. Univ. of Chicago. ----------. 1973b. "Speech as Music: Toward an understanding of the prosodic characteristics of language". Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America. ----------. 1980. A Dissertation on Natural Plwnology. New York: Garland. Stemberger. Joseph Paul. 1993. "Glottal Transparency". Plwnology 10. 107138. Stephens. Laurence D. & John S. Justeson. 1978. "Reconstructing 'Minoan' Phonology: The approach from universals of language and universals of writing systems". Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philo

logical Association 108.271-284.

Stephens, Laurence D. & Roger D. Woodard. 1986. "The Palatalization of the Labiovelars in Greek: A reassessment in typological perspective". Indo

germanische Forschungen 91. 129- 154.

Steriade. Donca. 1982. Greek Prosodies and the Nature of Syllabification. 2 vols. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. ----------. 1988. "Reduplication and Syllable Transfer in Sanskrit and Else where". Plwnology 5.73-155. Stonham, John T. 1990. Current Issues in Morphological Theory. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif. ----------. 1994. Studies in Combinatorial Morphology. Amsterdam & Phila delphia: John Benjamins. Streitberg. Wilhelm. 1896. Urgermanische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Stroud. Ronald S . 1989. "The Art of Writing in Ancient Greece". Senner

1989. 103-1 19.

Svenbro, Jasper. 1989. "Phrasikleia - An A rchaic Greek theory of writing". Schousboe & Larsen 1989.229-246. Szemerenyi, Oswald. 1990. EinfiJhrung in die vergleichende Sprachwissen schaft. 4th ed. Dannstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

13 3

REFERENCES

Taft, Marcus. 1992. Reading and the Mental Lexicon. Hillsdale, N.J.: Law rence Erlbaum. Taylor, Daniel J. ed. 1987. The History oJ Iinguistics in the Classical Period. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Templeton, Shane & Donald R. Bear, eds. 1992. Development oJ Ortho

graphic Knowledge arid the Foundations oJIiteracy: A memorialJestschriJt Jor Edmund H. Henderson. Hillsdale. N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Teodorsson. Sven-Tage. 1974. The Phonemic System oJ the Attic Dialect 4()()340 B.C. Lund: Berlingska Boktryckeriet.

----------. 1 978. The Phonology oJ Attic in the Hellenistic Period.

Goteburg:

Acta Universitatis Gothoburghensis. Thausing, Moritz. 1 863. Das natiirliche

lAutsystem des menschlichen Spra che, mit Bezug auJ BriJcke's 'Physiologie und Systematik der Sprachlaute '.

Leipzig: W. Engelmann. Thomas, Rosalind. 1 989. Oral Tradition and Athens. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Written Record in Classical

----------. 1992. Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece.

Cambridge: Cam bridge Univ. Press. Threatte, Leslie. 1980. The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions. VoU. PhOlwlogy. New York: Waiter de Gruyter. Thumb, Albert & Ernst Kieckers. 1932. Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte. 2nd ed. Vol.l. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Thumb, Albert & Anton Scherer. 1959. Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte. 2nd ed. VoU!' Ibid. Treiman, Rebecca. 1993. Beginning to Spell. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. ---------- & Andrea Zukowski . 1991. "Levels of Phonological A wareness". Brady & Shankweiler 1991.67-83. Tmka, B [ohumil]. 1939. "Phonological Remarks Concerning the Scandina vian Runic Writing". Reed 1964.292-296. Ultan, Russell. 1971. "A Typological View of Metathesis". Working Papers on lAnguage Universals ( WPLU) 7. 1-44. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univ. van Coetsem, Franz & Herbert L. Kufner, eds. 1972. Toward a Grammar of Proto-Germanic. TUbingen: Max Niemeyer. van der Hulst, Harry & Norval Smith, eds. 1985. Advances in Nonlinear Phonology. Dordrecht: Fons. Vennemann, Theo. 1 97 1 . "The Phonology of Gothic Vowels". lAnguage 47.

90-132. ----------. 1988. Preference lAws for Syllable Structure and the Explanation oJ Sound Change: With special reference to German, Germanic, Italian, and lAtin. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Vine, Brent. 1993. Studies in Archaic lAtin Inscriptions. Innsbruck: Institut

fUr Sprachwissenschaft, Univ. Innsbruck. Viredaz, Remy. 1983 "La graphie des groupes de consonnes en mycenien et en chypriote". Minas n.s. 18. 125-207. Voyles, Joseph B . 1992. Early Germanic Grammar: Pre-, proto-, and post Germanic languages. San Diego: Academic Press. .

134

REFERENCES

Wackemagel , Jacob. 1885. "Miszellen zur griechischen Grammatik: Die indefiniten Relativa". ZeitschriftfUr vergleichende Sprachforschung 27.8992. (Repr. in Wackernagel 1953.569-572.) ----------. 1893. "Beitrage zur Lehre vom griechischen Akzent". Programm zur Rektoratsfeier der UniversiUit Basel, 3-38. Reprinted in Wackernagel

1953.1072- 1 107. ----------. 1896. Altindische Grammatik. Vol.!. Lautlehre. Gottingen: Vanden hoeck & Ruprecht (2nd ed. With supplements by Albert Debrunner, 1957.) ----------. 1905. Altindische Grammatik. VoI.II. 1. Einleitung zur Wortlehre: Nominalkomposition. Ibid. (With supplements by Albert Debrunner, 1957.) ----------. 1953. Kleine Schriften. 2 vols. GoUingen: Vandenhoeck & Ru precht. (Repr. , 1969.) Wachter, Rudolf. 1989. "Zur Vorgeschichte des griechischen Alphabets". Kadmos 28. 19-78. ----------. 1991. "Abbreviated Writing". Kadmos 30.49-80. Wallace, Rex. 1989. "The Origins and Development of the Latin Alphabet". Senner 1989. 121- 135'Wathelet, Paul. 1970. Les traits eoliens dans la langue de l'epopee grecque.

Rome: Ateneo. Watkins, Calvert. 1976. "Observations on the ' Nestor's Cup' Inscription". Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 80.25-40. Watt, W[illiam] C. 1987. "The Byblos Matrix". Journal of Near Eastern

Studies 46. 1- 14. -----:-----. 1989. ''The Ras Shamra Matrix". Semiotica 74.61-108. ----------, ed. 1993. Writing Systems and Cognition. Dordrecht: K1uwer. Wetzels, Leo. 1 986. "Phonological Timing in Ancient Greek". Studies in Compensatory Lengthening ed. by Leo Wetzels & Engin Sezer, 297-344.

Dordrecht Foris. WilIetts, Ronald F., ed. 1967. The Law Code of Gortyn . (=Kadmos Suppl . 1.) Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. WilIiams, Henrik. 1992. "Which Came First, M or n ?". Review of Odenstedt

(1990). Arkivfor nordiskfilologi W7. 192-205.

Willows, Dale M., Richard S. Kruk & Evelyne Corcos. 1993. "Are there Differences Between Disabled and Normal Readers in Their Processing of Visual Information?". Willows, Kruk & Corcos 1993a. ----------, eds. 1 993 a. Visual Processes in Reading and Reading Disabilities . Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Woodard, Roger D. 1993. "On the Interaction of Greek Orthography and Phonology: Consonant clusters in the syllabic scripts". Watt 1993. ----------. Forthcoming. Elementa. Manuscript, Univ. of Southern California, Los Angeles. Wyau, William F., Jr. 1964. "Arcado-Cypriote (cit; Iuis". Glotta 42. 170-182. ----------. 1 968. "Early Greek Iy/". Glotta 46.229-237. ----------. 1970. ''The Prehistory of the Greek Dialects". Transactions and

Proceedings of the American Philological Association 101.557-632.

REFERENCES

135

----------. 1973. ''The Aeolic Substrate in the Peloponnese". American Journal ofPhilology 94.37-46. ----------. 1975a. "Homer's Linguistic Ancestors". 'E7TloTTJJ.l 01'lK7J 'E7TET11P k $€ooaAo1'{ny; 14. 133-147. ThessaIonike. ----------. 1975b. "Aeolic Reflexes of Labiovelars in Homer". Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 16.251-262. Yip, Moira. 1982. "Reduplication and C-V Skeleta in Chinese Secret Lan guages". linguistic Inquiry 13.637-661. Zec, Draga. 1988. Sonority Constraints on Prosodic Structure. Ph.D. disser tation, Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif.

GENERAL INDEX A.

Aaonym: 3,2 AcrophoDic priDci.ple: 0. 1 . 4. 1. 4.2. 4.5. 4.6. 5.5 Altides: see
Borrowing (bilingual): 4.7 Boustrophedon: 4. 1. 5.3 Bybl08 (Matrix): 4.1 . 5. 10 C.

Cdtic: 5.0 Old Irish: 5.0 Chimps/parrots : 6.6 Clitia: 3.1. 3.5, 6. 1. 6.2 Coda CODSODaots: 23-2.4, 3. 1 . 3.6 Compounds: 6.1. 6.2 Continuity: 2.8. 3.1-3.2. 3.8. 4.5. 4.10, 4.13. 5.12. 5.13

Conventions dating: 0.4 English orthographic: 6.2. 6.1 1. 6.12 graphic (as choices): 2.8. 3.2, 3.5, 4. 1 1. 6.4 D.

Daivalion: see Morphological knowledge Dummy vowel: 23, 3. 1. 3.5. 3.6 Dyslexia and scripts: 0.2. 6. 1 1 E. Etruscan: 4.7, 5.3

Experiments: 6.2. 63. 6.5 F.

FealWl: geODletry: 1.2-1.3. 2.5. 5.9. 5.12-5. 13, 6.7. 6. 10 Features (distinclive): 2. 1 . 4.2. 4.5-4.7. 4. 1 1, 5.6, 5.12. 5.13. 6.8-6.10. 6.12. 6.14 FIrSt Grammalical Treatise: 5.5, 6.14 G. Games: 6. 13 Geminates: 23, 3.1, 4.7, 53

Glides: 1.8-1.9, 2.5. 27, 33, 4.5, 5.9fT L

India: 4.10-4. 1 1 see SaiplS (Iodic, etc.) Inflection: see MorpboIogical koowledgc Interpuncts: see Word dividen L Lexicoo: 6.1-6.3

linguistic knowledge: 1.1 . 3.8. 5.105.12; ch.6 epilinguistic: 6.12 explicit: 6.2, 63, 6.6, 6.9, 6.10, 6. 12-6.14 implicit: 6.2, 63, 6.6, 6.9, 6.10, 6. 12-6.14

138 Linguistic knowledge (cont.) and literacy: 6. 12, 6.14 metalinguistic ttansfer: 6.3, 6. 10, 6.12-6.14 see also Phonological knowledge, Morphological knowledge, Word Listeme: 6. 1 Literacy assumptions: ch.6 Germanic: 4.10 Greece (Ancient): 4.3, 4. 10, 4.12 India: 4. 10-4. 1 1 Old Caananite: 4. 10 Logograms: 2.7, 3.2, 7.2-7.3 M.

Matrix Byblos: 5. 10, 6. 14, 7.5.5 phonetic: 5.8-5. 13. 6.14; see FealW.'e8 Ras Shamra: 5.9-5. 1 1 . 6. 1 . 7.5.5 Runic: 5.8-5. 13. 6.14 Meta(linguistic) knowledge: see linguistic knowledge Metathesis: 1 .4. 1.5, 2.1 . 2.5 Morphological knowledge: 5. 1 1 , 6. 1 , 6.3-6.6, 6.12 polysynthetic languages: 6.5 Morphological spelling: 3.5, 3.7, 6.12 N.

Nasals (not wrinen): 3 . 1 , 5.3. 6. 10 O.

Orthography children's spellings: 6.10-6. 1 1 idiosyncrasies of English: 0.2, 6. 1 1-6. 12 not the same as phonology: 6. 1 1 see also Conventions, Scripts Osthoff's Law: 1.5 P.

Phoneme: see Features (distinctive) Phonological knowledge: 1 . 1 , 2.8. 3.6-3.8 4. 1 1 , 5.5, 5.8. 5. 13; ch.6
Rebus principle: 6.7 Reversal (of sound change): 6.9

INDEX

Runes: ch.5 and magic/secrecy: 5.0, 5.2, 5. 13 Old English: 5.5. 5.7 Runic language: 5.0, 5.3 phonological system: 5.3, 5.6. 5.8. 5. 14-5.19 S.

Scripts aphabetic: see Alphabet autonomy: 0.2. 6. 1 1 Aramaean/Aramaic: 1.1, 4.5 (Proto-)Canaanite : 1 . 1 , 4.1-4.9, 4. 1 1 -4. 12, 5.10, 5.12. 7. 1fT Matrix: 5.10-5. 13 Chinese: 6.7 Cyrillic: 5.5 Egyptian: 4. 1 , 4.5, 6.7. 7.2 Etruscan: 5.3, 5.7 Gothic: 5.4, 5.5 Greek

alphabet: 1.1; ch.4; 5.3-5.5, 5.8, 6.8, 7.lff Cyprian syllabary: 1 . 1 ; ch.3; 4.5 linear B syllabary: ch.2; 4.5, 4.8, 4.12 Hebrew: 4.3 Indic: 5.4-5.5. 5.8 &ihm.i: �.7, 4. 1 1 devan igari: 1 . 1 , 4. 10-4. 1 1 , 7.3 Hindi: 4.7 VedidVeda: 4. 10 Japanese: 0.2. 1 . 1 Korean: Han'gul: 5.4. 5.8 Latin/Roman: 4.7, 5.3-5.5, 5.7 Mayan: 6.7 Northwest Semitic: see Canaanite Phoenician: 1 . 1 , 4. 1 , 4.3-4.5, 4.7-4.9, 4. 12, 5. 10, 7.2 see also Matrix: Byblos as representation: 0.2 segmentally coded: 1 . 1 , 5.5, 6.14 segmentally linear: see Alphabet Semitic: see individual languages South Arabian: 4.9, 5.4 Sumerian: 6.7 syllabically coded: 1.1 Ugaritic: 1 . 1 , 4.1, 4.4-4.5. 5.4 see also Matrix: Ras Shamra Venetic: 4.7. 5.4 Segment 1.1. 6.7-6. 10. 6. 12-6. 14, 7. 1-7.5

INDEX Segmentation ability: 1 . 1 . 2.8. 3.6-3.8. 6.12-6.14; cb.7 see also Phonological knowledge Shorthand (style): 0.2. 2.7. 3.2 Sonority Hierarchy: 1.2-1 .5. 2.2-2.4. 33. 3.8. 5.12. 6.7 coda clusters in onset position: 3.6 exceptions: 2.5-2.7. 33-3.7 minimal sonority distance: 13. 1.8 onset clusters in coda position: 2.6. 3.4. 4.9 see also Syllable Speech errors: 6.13 Spelling: see Orthography. Conventions Syllabary: 1.1. 4. 13. 6.7. 7. 1-7.5 Syllabification: ch.l (esp. 1.6fI); 2.2. 2.5. 2.7

139

Syllable: 1.2·1.10. 6.7; cb.7 adjunct: 1.2·1.3. 3.6, 3.8 parsing (algorithm): 1.6- 1.9. 2.2-2.3 as

'sonority phrase':

see

Sonority Hieran:hy structure ofEDg. words: 13-1.4, 6.13 weight: 2.2

V.

Visual memory and spelling: 6. 1 1 W.

Word: 6. 1-6 ..5 definitions: 6.1-6.2 salience: 6.6 Word dividers: 3.1, 3.5, 4. 1, 5.2, 5.3, 6.2-6.4 Writing: see literacy, Conventions

Ancient Scripts and Phonological Knowledge (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Read more

Phonological change

Read more

Phonological change

Read more

Zolar's Encyclopedia of Ancient and Forbidden Knowledge

Read more

Rules, Constraints, and Phonological Phenomena

Read more

Zolar's Encyclopedia of Ancient and Forbidden Knowledge

Read more

Rules, Constraints, and Phonological Phenomena

Read more

Original Hitchhikers Radio Scripts

Read more

Sales Scripts That Sell

Read more

Constraints in Phonological Acquisition

Read more

Original Hitchhikers Radio Scripts

Read more

Wicked Cool Shell Scripts

Read more

Original Hitchhikers Radio Scripts

Read more

Costumes and Scripts in the Elizabethan Theatres

Read more

Approaches to Phonological Complexity (Phonology and Phonetics)

Read more

General knowledge for Chinese Ancient Culture

Read more

Navajo Lifeways: Contemporary Issues, Ancient Knowledge

Read more

Approaches to Phonological Complexity (Phonology and Phonetics)

Read more

Approaches to Phonological Complexity (Phonology and Phonetics)

Read more

Imagining Cities: Scripts, Signs and Memories

Read more

Phonological Augmentation in Prominent Positions

Read more

The Phonological Spectrum: Suprasegmental Structure

Read more

120 SCRIPTS POUR FLASH 8

Read more

Hidden History: Lost Civilizations, Secret Knowledge, and Ancient Mysteries

Read more

Hidden History: Lost Civilizations, Secret Knowledge, and Ancient Mysteries

Read more

Knowledge and Strategy (Knowledge Reader)

Read more

Semantic Knowledge and Practical Knowledge

Read more

The Routledge Handbook of Scripts and Alphabets

Read more

FileMaker 8 Functions and Scripts Desk Reference

Read more

Knowledge, Nature, and the Good: Essays on Ancient Philosophy

Read more

Recommend Documents

Ancient Scripts and Phonological Knowledge (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

ANCIENT SCRIPTS AND PHONOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE AMSTERDAM STUDIES IN THE THEORY AND mSTORY OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE General Ed...

Phonological change

CHAPTER 3 RECONSTRUCTION 3.1 Relative chronology So far I have looked at phonological change mainly from the viewpoint o...

Phonological change

Phonological change Paul Kiparsky Abstract There are two processes that bring about change in the phonological component...

Zolar's Encyclopedia of Ancient and Forbidden Knowledge

Encyclopedia of Ancient and Forbidden Secrets Nye Abraham, The Jew: (Alchemist and magician, circa, 1400). Comparativ...

Rules, Constraints, and Phonological Phenomena

Rules, Constraints, and Phonological Phenomena This page intentionally left blank Rules, Constraints, and Phonologi...

Zolar's Encyclopedia of Ancient and Forbidden Knowledge

Rules, Constraints, and Phonological Phenomena

Rules, Constraints, and Phonological Phenomena This page intentionally left blank Rules, Constraints, and Phonologi...

Original Hitchhikers Radio Scripts

DOUGLAS ADAMS ~~± : i f ) -j -- m *"*• $9.95/FICTION mmmm So you think you know all there is to know about Dougla...

Sales Scripts That Sell

16505-SSTS 6/18/07 2:35 PM Page i SALES SCRIPTS THAT $ELL 16505-SSTS 6/18/07 2:35 PM Page ii This page inten...

Constraints in Phonological Acquisition

This page intentionally left blank Constraints in Phonological Acquisition This outstanding volume presents a state-...