Author Topic: sound change rules  (Read 11046 times)

Offline freknu

  • Forum Regulars
  • Serious Linguist
  • *
  • Posts: 397
  • Country: fi
    • Ostrobothnian (Norse)
Re: sound change rules
« Reply #45 on: November 01, 2014, 04:07:19 PM »
So do you see a distinction between how and why?

Sure, and in my example I would say the decision is the "how", while phonological processes is the "why".

Offline Daniel

  • Administrator
  • Experienced Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 1642
  • Country: us
    • English
Re: sound change rules
« Reply #46 on: November 01, 2014, 04:20:27 PM »
Why? :)
(If you're ignoring agentivity.)
Welcome to Linguist Forum! If you have any questions, please ask.

Offline freknu

  • Forum Regulars
  • Serious Linguist
  • *
  • Posts: 397
  • Country: fi
    • Ostrobothnian (Norse)
Re: sound change rules
« Reply #47 on: November 02, 2014, 02:04:36 AM »
Why? :)

Em... the decision shows "how" the phonological change occurs, phonological processes shows "why" the phonological change occurs. If you want a phonological "why", then you need to study the problem phonologically. If you want an anthropomorphic/social/agentive "why", then you need to study the problem anthropomorphically/socially/agentivally.

Two different things.

Offline MalFet

  • Global Moderator
  • Serious Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 282
  • Country: us
Re: sound change rules
« Reply #48 on: November 02, 2014, 03:08:07 AM »
Quote
There can't be a post-hoc because these are non-telic accounts of emergent phenomena.
Then perhaps the "why" question simply doesn't apply at all-- if the phenomena don't really exist anyway, then the "why" is just because it's an illusion, and the real question is what is underlying in the system. That may be a fair point.

Who said the phenomena don't exist? Who said anything about "illusion"? Where are you getting this? I am sincerely confused.

Offline Daniel

  • Administrator
  • Experienced Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 1642
  • Country: us
    • English
Re: sound change rules
« Reply #49 on: November 02, 2014, 12:15:14 PM »
Shouldn't one study the underlying cause of an emergent phenomenon?
Welcome to Linguist Forum! If you have any questions, please ask.

Offline jkpate

  • Forum Regulars
  • Linguist
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Country: us
    • American English
    • jkpate.net
Re: sound change rules
« Reply #50 on: November 02, 2014, 01:42:00 PM »
If a phenomenon is emergent, then there is no singular underlying cause.
All models are wrong, but some are useful - George E P Box

Offline MalFet

  • Global Moderator
  • Serious Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 282
  • Country: us
Re: sound change rules
« Reply #51 on: November 02, 2014, 08:17:32 PM »
As jkpate has suggested, if you're trying to find the underlying cause of an emergent phenomenon, you're failing to appreciate what the word means. Emergent systems have properties that can neither be reduced nor displaced to something else. That's the entire point.

I have no idea why an analysis of causality "at a level of human understanding" should require a simple vector between cause and effect. After all, human understanding has been engaged with far more interesting material relationships for millennia now, as far back as we can trace. If you want to stipulate for yourself that "why" has no place outside of determined causation, that's your choice to make of course, but you're going against a few centuries of very well-established convention for the word in epistemology and the philosophy of science.