Editor for this issue: <>
I think the original question was about words lengthening over time as a result of PHONOLOGICAL change, which the recent responses by Peeters and LaPolla do not address. One example that is frequently cited is the addition of a final vowel to certain consonant-final words between Old Tamil and Modern Tamil. Starting from the other end, so to speak, one has such examples as the many varieties of Romance (Spanish, Catalan, Portuguese, French) that add an initial vowel before ancestral (i.e., Latin) s+consonant clusters.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
The process known as the quantity shift in Germanic languages would be a good example of genuine (non-compensatory) lengthening. In the Scandinavian languages what is traditionally known as light stems, i.e. CvC monosyllables and CvCv polysyllables, are lost as types, by virtue of the quantity shift. Examples: Old Swedish vika 'week', gata 'street', bik 'pitch', tak 'roof' show up as vekka <vecka>, gaata <gata>, bekk <beck> and taak <tak> in Modern (central) Swedish. Tomas Riad Scandinavian languages Stockholm universityMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
It seems to me that when I was a graduate student many years ago, one of the common speculations about pre-Indo-European was that it is likely to have had post-postional forms that were later reduced to inflectional endings, hence creating "longer" words. Of course, this is largely speculative, but it suggests that people did not find it difficult to envision this sequence of development. This may seem like a quaint notion to today's Indo-Europeanists, but I offer it as an example. Bill Crossgrove Brown UniversityMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Phonological shortening is a mouth/time/familiarity thing. But semantics has its own needs, and restoration of contrasts via things like preprefixes, double negation, etc., etc. is widely attested. Longer expressions are the (temporary) result.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Don Webb asks > 'Is there any language in which words have evolved into *longer* forms?' In the Siouan family, most roots are monosyllabic or bisyllabic, but most actual words are rather longer, at least bisyllabic. Part of this is due to the accretion of clitic material and the presence of inflectional and derivational affixes (including markers of oblique verb stems, reflexives, etc.). However, even historically monosyllabic roots also tend to give rise to bisyllabic stems. Several processes are at work. One process is accretion of suffixes of the form *(r)V (R included after final vowels). In some of the languages, e.g., in the Dhegiha branch, the extended forms are the only ones attested, apart from a few fossils here and there. In other languages, e.g., Dakotan, this process still operates more or less productively to form independent (free-standing) stems from bound stems. Although the process has generally been interpreted synchronically as phonologically governed epenthesis, I think it makes more diachronic sense with nouns to interpret it as fusing of stems with bleached anaphoric material, after the fashion of Greenberg's analysis in (approx) "Where does gender [marking] come from?" Examples: Da c^ha~l=wa's^te `pleasant' (heart + warm), vs. c^ha~te' `heart' (with -e) (the t => l shift is a low level change); he'ya (*r => y in Dakotan) `louse', vs. hez^a~'z^a~=la `nit' (louse + pale (redup) + diminutive). This process is comparable in general terms to processes in other languages world-wide that have been called variously theme formation (cf. Indo-European) or absolute formation (cf. Uto-Aztecan). The details vary, but all such processes involve adding an empty or gender marking extension to a stem in certain morphosyntactic contexts, especially when other markers with more concrete meanings are absent, but often also with some markers, but not all, or with all markers (in which case the extension has become part of the root, for all practical purposes). Other processes that extend stems in the Siouan family include reduplication, cf. Winnebago ho'o `fish' (long monosyllable) vs. Omaha-Ponca hu'hu `fish' (redup, presumably fish considered as a school of fish); appending of bleached auxiliaries, cf. Omaha-Ponca ga~'=dha `want' (with coverb =dha of unknown meaning); moribund unpossessed markers, cf. Omaha-Ponca watha~' `squash', with wa- `unpossessed' or wahi' `leg'; pervasive compounding, cf. Omaha-Ponca i'=ha `lip' (mouth skin), i'=dhe `to promise, to speak of' (mouth make); pervasive use of instrumental prefixes with verbs to indicate unfocussed means or instrument (effectively a system of manner classifiers), cf. Omaha-Ponca gase' `to cut; sever with a blow', base' `to cut; sever with a long tool', ma'=se `to cut; sever with a blade', etc. Caution: All examples cited from memory!Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
There may be a case of diachronic lengthening in the northern dialect of Sakao (Espiritu Santo, Vanuatu), and there certainly is, but artificially provoked, in the variety of the southern dialect spoken in Hog-Harbour. Sakao is an Austronesian language that has undergone drastic sound changes, e.g. *vati --> jED (E = IPA epsilon, D = delta) In brief, the article *na became fused to the noun, with its vowel partly assimilating to the vowel of the following syllable, then word stress was innovated and a sweeping vowel shift took place. Finally, in the southern dialect, all unstressed vowels were lost. Thus: *na gatsi (black ant) --> naR *na matsi (fish, bird) --> nnEs *na Gweleku-ku (my hand) --> nlkyG (G = IPA gamma) *na patu-ku (my head) --> nBDyG (B = IPA beta) *na toa (fowl) --> *notoa --> nCD (C = IPA mirror-image of "c") The northern dialect, on the other hand, looks as if it had retained the pretonic vowels lost by the southern dialect: North South aDalan nDlan "cloud" oeBDyG nBDyG "my head" (oe is the IPA oe, joined) Ette ntte "something" kElE klE "to paint, smear, write" mEkElE mklE "he paints, etc." mAnAs mnAs "he likes" (A = back, rounded, a) AGArAn nGrAn "its behind" oerymyG nRmyG 'my voice, thoughts" >From even the very few examples above, it seems likely that what happened is that consonant clusters were broken up in the northern dialect by epenthetic vowels that only recently emerged as fully fledged phonemes (I'd rather say, archiphonemes). Cases where pretonic vowels are not predictable (as they are above) from the tonic seem to correspond to earlier vowel clusters (mostly arising from the loss of fricatives). Thus: olAn "its tail" <-- *ne-Gwele-na as attested by: AwAl- "tail of" <-- *ne-Gwele (Gwele is attested in many other Santo languages by such forms as "fele, vele"; so what I reconstruct *Gw may have been [hw]) I used to believe that the Hog Harbour dialect behaved in a similar manner, until I discovered what I had been told was Hog-Harbour dialect was "church speech": the people of Hog-Harbour, in fact, spoke exactly like the unchristianized villagers on the plateau above, except when in the presence of church elders, or of outsiders. Digging through old records and listening to stories from old men, I found that the Presbyterian missionaries sent there had never managed to learn the language properly, least of all pronounce 5 or 6 consonants in a row, nor distinguish between its 11 oral vowels, so that they used a kind of Sakao-Pidgin cum baby-talk, which they proceeded to enshrine in printed translations of some psalms and parts of the New Testament. Thus they wrote "nu-ruru-muc" or "nuru-rumuc" (they consistently used "c" for a velar fricative) what was rightly /nRmyG/ (R = trill), and "vocovoc" what was, and still is /BCGBCG/. The worst case I ever came across was when I elicited a standard word list from the native Pastor: he gave me /nCDCDCD/ for "butterfly"; much later I heard the proper word: /nDDAD/ (which is regularly derivable from *na pepepe, attested in other languages of the region, whereas /nDDCD/ is not, let alone /nCDCDCD/). I doubt that the epenthetic vowels of the northern dialect are due to a similar influence for this simple reason that both pagan and christianized northern Sakao speakers speak precisely the same language. I vaguely remember having read somewhere that Russian did such a thing, that is, break up consonant clusters. Could someone who reads Linguist confirm or correct this, please?Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Anyone interested in diachronic lengthening of words might note] Schuhmacher's work "Wortverla"ngerung im Melanesischen und Man'czaks zweites Gesetz", in Zeitschrift fu"r Phonetik 24 (1971). Richard CoatesMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue