|

download as
printer friendly pdf |
Lenition
and why that is your mothers fault Ease
of articulation. Don't worry if you never heard of this, all will be
revealed. It's a contentious concept in linguistic circles, but for
our purposes it's rather helpful.
And feel free just to jump the explanation - it's a bit long - and go
straight to the bit where we tell you how lenition
works.
Ever noticed how things get slurred in fast speech? Suddenly whole
sounds drop out, change into something else ... sometimes that becomes so
established that even orthography will reflect that. The word
<in-pede> had become <impede> long before it even reached
Norman French. And be honest - when was the last time you pronounced
<in Botham's> as such rather than <im Botham's>? This is
where ease of articulation comes in - you are anticipating the next sound
you know is to come and your mouth starts getting into position for that
sound long before the preceding one has finished. So sounds next to
each other become more alike or drop out, if it just gets too tricky for
your mouth.
Funnily enough, this also applies to vowels and consonants.
Consonants are (in articulatory terms) tricky bastards with a lot of
things having to get shifted around (anything from your lips to your
pharynx) and held in place, whereas vowels are relatively simple things -
just move your tongue a bit this way or that way and you have it.
So
when you speed up your speech and have a consonant between vowels, it
tries to become more like a vowel. The first thing it loses is the
closure that many consonants have (try saying a <p> - notice how
your lips close up for a moment?), becoming a fricative (p becoming an
<f> in this case - still a consonant but "easier" to
say). There may be many intermediate stages, but eventually the
consonant either becomes a vowel or disappears altogether. Prove
it? Easy. Look at the word for mother in the Indoeuropean
languages and how it developed from ancient Indoeuropean to our ancestor
languages to the modern day ones - watch out for the <t>:
|
|
mātēr
(Indoeuropean) |
|
|
(other branches) |
|
mōder
(Germanic) |
mātēr
(Latin) |
mati
(Old Slavonic) |
mātār
(Old Indic) |
mētēr
(Ancient Greek) |
māthir
(Old Irish) |
muoter
(Old German) |
mōder
(Old French) |
|
|
macer
(Tocharic) |
|
mōdor
(Old English) |
|
|
|
|
|
móðir
(Old Norse) |
|
|
|
|
màthair
(Gaelic) |
Mutter
(German) |
matri
(Sicialian) |
matir
(Ukrainian) |
mātā
(Bengali) |
metéra
(Greek) |
máthair
(Irish) |
muter
(Yiddish) |
madre
(Italian) |
mat(ka)
(Czech/Slovak) |
mātri
(Hindi) |
mãte
(Latvian) |
|
moder
(Danish) |
madre
(Castilian) |
mati
(Croatian) |
mātu
(Pali) |
mótė
(Lithuanian) |
|
muada
(Bavarian) |
mádre
(Sardinian) |
matj
(Russian) |
mādar
(Farsi) |
|
|
mither
(Scots) |
matre
(Corsican) |
mać
[maʧ]
(Sorbian) |
|
|
|
móðir
(Icelandic) |
|
mat
(Russian) |
|
|
|
mother
(English) |
|
|
|
|
mayragh
(Manx) |
mor
(Norwegian) |
mare
(Catalan) |
mazi
(Belorussian) |
mor
(Pashtu) |
mayr
(Armenian) |
|
moer
(Frisian) |
maire
(Occitan) |
|
|
|
| |
|
mère
(French) |
|
|
|
|
|
mãe
(Portuguese) |
|
|
|
So
what? Well, if you look closely, there is some kind of consonant
degradation going on - you start with a very strong consonant <t>
which gradually is reduced
to <d> then <ð>
then <h> and then nothing at all (the words underlaid in
red)!! So you see, it's a very common thing - even
more so when you look at the Tocharic example. Tocharic is the most
eastern indo-european language, sadly extinct, but spoken in East
Turkestan up until about 700 AD - but it had already changed the [t] to
a [ʧ]!!!
The mad thing about Celtic languages though is that this does not only
happen within a
word like màthair
but also across word boundaries! In Celtic languages, a consonant
between vowels gets lenited fullstop. Well, as a rule of
thumb. But pardon me, where is the consonant between two vowels in Irish
an
bhean? (Gaelic used to spell it that way too, it's just a better
example) And what about
an fear? Same thing, isn't
it? Unfortunately, not.
There is something very old going on here - there used to be an extra
vowel. But for that we have to go back to Indo-European and Old
Irish. The modern definite article
an
used to look very
different then, it was
sind-os, the
-os
being an ending for the
nominative case of masculine nouns and
sind-a
for feminine
nouns. You know where we're going now? Let's have the
overview:
| Indo-European/Old
Irish |
Translation |
What's
going on |
|
sind-os
fer-os |
the
man |
two
consonants, so nothing happens - but the s-
is lost at
some point in history |
| ind-os
fer-os |
the
man |
now
we lose the endings |
| ind
fer |
the
man |
look
familiar? lose the
-d |
| in
fer |
the
man |
change
the spelling and the sounds a bit |
| an
fear |
the
man |
and
now Gaelic assimilates the
an to
am |
| am
fear |
the
man |
...
a 4000 year journey in 6 lines |
So what
about lenition? "Patience young Skywalker!" ... let's look at a
feminine noun
| Indo-European/Old
Irish |
Translation |
What's
going on |
|
sind-a
ben-a |
the
woman |
oops
- consonant-vowel-consonant - we have to lenite! and also lose the
s- |
| ind-a
bhen-a |
the
woman |
aha.
now what? as before, we lose the endings ... |
| ind
bhen |
the
woman |
look
vaguely familiar? now we lose the
d- |
| in
bhen |
the
woman |
change
the spelling and the sounds a bit |
|
an
bhean |
the
woman |
Irish!
Gaelic now loses the
-n (and changes the meaning slightly) |
| a'
bhean |
the
wife |
Bingo! |
Funnily
enough, Gaelic seems to have come full circle in some instances - back to
the consonant between two vowels gets lenited - but not always (see air an fhear etc.). And that is why it's all your mothers
fault!!! Hopefully it makes just a bit more sense now.
Enough etymology now - let's have a look at the
real
stuff.
|