Talk:Prothesis (linguistics)

Arka/ngarka

"Ngarka" (not ngyarka) is a language norm for Tundra Nenetses. For example, see the external link (in Nenets language) with detailed description of Tundra Nenets language. There are quite a few common words that start with "ng". "Arka" is described as a dialectal variation, in which the initial "ng" is omitted, i.e., the opposite effect. Mukadderat 16:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Quotation from [1]:

The basic syllable structure implies that word-forms do not begin with a vowel. However, many dialects seem to contain words with an initial vowel, though usually very few of them. For instance, шmke ‘what’ is widely used instead of ngшmke. By contrast, the Western dialects, because of the loss of the initial *ng, possess a large amount of initial vowels, and thus an initial syllable structure V(C), e.g. Western arka ‘big’ ~ Central–Eastern ngarka.

Mukadderat 16:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Multiple-phoneme

In some glossries prothesis is defined as "phoneme or phonemes", "phoneme or syllable" Can anyone give an example of multiple-phoneme prothesis? Mukadderat 22:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Prothesis" is a very old term and has been used in a variety of senses. As far as I can tell, its meaning in historical linguistics is often limited to the addition of one euphonic vowel to the beginning of a word over the course of history. But you can also find it used to refer to the addition of more than one sound, and for almost any reason. The Roman grammarian Aelius Donatus (q.v.) gives as examples: gnatos pro natos, and tetulit pro tulit. Here, the "g" in "gnatos" is etymological, and the "te" in "tetulit" is really a reduplication, and not a prothesis in the historical-phonetics sense. Nevertheless, this can be taken as an example of the addition TWO sounds ("te").--Gheuf 21:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Alterations

I've also left you a note on your talk page about my proposed alterations to the page. Please reply on my talk page when you get a chance.--Gheuf 14:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Hello,

I'm trying to make the articles on sound changes/rhetorical devices more precise, and also to give them a common format. The section on prothesis as it is now is I think a loosely structured laundry list. I want to categorize the different types of prothesis according to the different senses of the word, which may refer either to 1. a historical sound change, or 2. a grammatical rule. That's how I've organized other articles on related topics. I don't see that any important information was lost in the change. If there is something specific that you think was deleted, how about we change the article to my new format, and you add in that information in the appropriate place? All your reverts have certainly removed at least 1 bit of specific information (the IPA pronunciation and the corrected etymology).--Gheuf 19:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You may easily look at the difference and see at least two deleted sentences in the top.

Also, I have to disagree with your classification of "historical sound change" vs. "gramatical rule". The spanish example is exactly the same barring of consonant clusters in nativized words and happens regularly list of 'est*' pages: stability<->estabilidad, Steven (or whatever original name)<->Esteban, student<->estudiante, etc. BTW: "Special pages<-> paginas especial" (metaexample :-)

Compare this with list of 'st*' pages, which are all modern borrowings. BTW it could be an interesting section to comment on this behavior.

On the other hand, in Turkish not always clusters st/sm. etc. are 100% forbidden, even historically, eg. "Stoacılık" <-> Stoicism.

Also, it will be interesting to list all languages with regular prosthesis: also articles about Sardinian language and Piedmontese language mention it. BTW, Turkish and Spanish language articles dont link this word. Any others? (I've just found an unlinked in Irish initial mutations. More?)

In conclusion, Yes, this article was a mess of chaotic additions on the brink of original research. But just because it was a just a "laundry list", all statements were verifiable. Yor introduction of any nontrivial order/classification, although well-meaning, must be based on reliable sources. Sorry for not writing this earlier. I have a very limited time for wikipedia now. Mukadderat 17:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Question: What is the term that describes the following type of "temporary" epenthesis: "stoare" -> "set estoarn"? Mukadderat 18:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

More examples of prothesis

Just a pile for suture use, found by Googling

• v-prothesis:
  • "in some Bohemian dialects, before initial "o" [2]
  • Belarusian language voblaka, russian: oblako (cloud)
• i-prothesis I seen mentioned for Belarussian, but dont saw examples
• t-prothesis and h-prothesis in Irish initial mutations
• e-prothesis is Spanish & Portugal
• i-prothesis in Turkish
• j-prothesis in Romani [3]

Mukadderat 18:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Might not /o/→/vo/ (likely by way of /wo/) be an example of vowel breaking as in Italian? —Tamfang (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Gheuf's explanations

Thanks for your quick reply. You obviously have knowledge and enthusiasm for this subject. But I would like to defend my alterations against your objections.

The first of your two objections was that I had deleted information. In my opinion, I merely rearranged the information and deleted unnecessary words. You are quite right that I can see the difference between the two versions: what I want to know is, what INFORMATION is it, the loss of which inspired you to revert my edit?

Here are a few of the things I altered from the article, and a justification for altering them:

First sentence: no pronunciation was given; etymology only given for ONE term (not the other); the word "phonemes" was a bit of bravado, and incorrect at that; "usually to facilitate pronunciation" was meaningless. Second sentence: metaplasm was a rhetoricians' calassification not used in historical phonetics, and so was removed as insufficiently general for the opening paragraph.

Next paragraph: "opposite phenomenon" was a meaningless expression and so was removed (paragoge might with equal justification be called the opposite of prothesis).

Next paragraph: "corruption" is not a technical term, and so was removed

Examples from Spanish, Turkish, Nenets and Hindi: are good, and so were kept, but were put into a different format.

Remarks about Interlingua: Were about Interlingua, not about prothesis, and so were deleted.

I did not remove any other information. And even if you felt that any of this information ought to be retained, it was possible to do that in my format, and it was not necessary to revert my edit.

The second of your two objections was that, quite apart from the loss or gain of information in the article, the new organizational principle I employed in my edit was unjustifiable. You objected to my classifying the uses of the term "prothesis" into two categories: historical sound change, and grammatical rule. You suggested that this division was "unverifiable."

To this objection I answer, that the question has not been properly posed. I claimed that the word "prothesis" was used in those two senses, and organized the material according to those two headings, because when I came to the article, the word was in fact already being used in those two senses. (It contained both examples of historical sound change (from Latin) and of synchronic phonological processes (from Nenets).) The question therefore ought to be, whether these two examples were properly classified as prothesis? and not, whether the distinction I made is verifiable? I believe the answer to the first question is Yes. If it is No, then the article needs a revamping much more drastic than the one I gave it.

Thanks for your interesting example from Spanish, a language that has known prothesis as a historical sound change, and that also continues to employ prothesis synchronically as a means of breaking up syllable-onset consonant clusters (which keep arriving in Spain from across the sea). This is interesting; but the fact that Spanish happens to fall into both categories does not show that the categories are in fact the same. Examples could be adduced of a language that has known prothesis as a historical sound change, but no longer uses it to serve its persnickety phontactics. (French for example: contrast "étroit" with "stricte").

Furthermore, even if I GRANT that the distinction between prothesis as historical sound change and prothesis as grammatical rule is unjustified, your revert is STILL not justified, since it, too, contains the same wicked doctrine: "Prothesis may be a form of word corruption during borrowing from foreign languages or during derivation from protolanguages" makes the same distinction. --Gheuf 01:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

mukadderat's answer

Thank you for your patience and undeserved praise of my seeming knowledge. Apologies for delayed answer, as I said, I have only a limited time for wikipedia last times. Additional apologies for my initial wrong opinion about your edits: I've seen quite a few good-intended and well-meaning wikipedians who try to put some kind of order into topics, but only superficially. Your comments show real familiarity with the subject. Still, I have to respectfully disagree with some of your reply.

When I was thinking about the objections, I slowly came to a realization how poor both our versions are. Therefore instead of trying to prove who is right and who is wrong and in what amount, I would like to suggest to think about an improved text.

Since I am in a hurry, below is some initial remarks, without particular order.

• (BTW, something is a bit wrong with Aphesis/Aphaeresis article as well.)

• IMO this is mainly the topic of phonology, rather than phonetics
• usage of prothesis, if any (at least one dictionaryt mentions it) as poetic tool must be discussed somewhere
• the current definition is vague, because it does not cut away the following processes: logical->illogical,

political->apolitical, walking -> a-walking (poetic archaism; what is the english term for this construction)?

• sorry again, but the classification "historical sound change" vs. "grammar rule" is apples and oranges. You wrote: "the same wicked doctrine: "Prothesis may be a form of word corruption during borrowing from foreign languages or during derivation from protolanguages" makes the same distinction." No, not the same. The distinction looks similar, but speaks within the same plane: "language process", although may be clumsily.

• "sounds/phonemes/letters" these are three levels of abstraction. I chose "phonemes" because this level corresponds to phonology. At the same time, thank you for bringing into light the nessecity to explain all three levels involved.

• interlingua - a piece of trivia as it stands, I agree. Also I failed to find a reference. But I admit a remote possibility that in some sources the absence of prothesis in interlingua is a notable phenomenon to be discussed. (It occurs to me that this question may be interesting to discuss for alll artificial languages, probably about all kinds of natural mutations).

• if you say that "corruption" is not a technical term, I would invite you to look into corruption (linguistics).

<more to follow...>

Sorry, have to go away Mukadderat 19:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello I'm back again after a little hiatus. Could please explain your words:

sorry again, but the classification "historical sound change" vs. "grammar rule" is apples and oranges. You wrote: "the same wicked doctrine: "Prothesis may be a form of word corruption during borrowing from foreign languages or during derivation from protolanguages" makes the same distinction." No, not the same. The distinction looks similar, but speaks within the same plane: "language process", although may be clumsily.

I believe my point was that the term "prothesis" can be used to refer both to synchronic and to diachronic processes, that the article already made the same claim, and that it was therefore not unreasonable to organize the article under those two broad headings. You appeared to object to this line of reasoning, by giving a different interpretation to the phrase: "Prothesis may be a form of word corruption during borrowing from foreign languages or during derivation from protolanguages." While I thought this phrase was making a distinction between prothesis as a historical sound change and prothesis as a diachronic phenomenon, you preferred to see the distinction as "speak[ing] within the same plane: "language process", although may be clumsily." I have no idea what you mean by this. Do you agree with my interpretation of the phrase? or not? if not, why not?

Thanks.

--Gheuf 03:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You probably wanted to say "between prothesis as a historical sound change and prothesis as a synchronic phenomenon". With this interpretation I may agree, as an additional subclassification of the section "Prothesis in word formation". My major objection was against your original dichotomy "historical sound change" vs "grammatical rule". First of all, in this setting it is a chicken and egg problem. Grammatical rules are codification of certain sound rules, which implicitely existed before people started writing grammars, and these "historical sound changes" followed these rules, traditions, whatever. Second, I doubt that the conversion "school → iskuul" is called "grammatical rule", but this may be my poor understanding of English language usage. But when now you state in terms of "diachronic" vs. "synchronic", it makes more sense: in our context this means distinction between formation of these rules and momentary application of the already formed rules when borrowing a new foreign word.

Concluding:

1. All types of linguistical prosthesis covered in the article are based on the same phonetical rule: breaking of certain consonant clusters.
2. This happen in at least three different areas: (1) word derivation (2) sandhi modification (3) non-native pronunciation
3. Word derivation may be further subdivided into diachronic ans synchronic phenomena.

I believe this is a valid merge of our points of view. Your opinion? Mukadderat 21:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Prosthesis vs. prothesis

Do linguists actually use the word prosthesis, as opposed to prothesis (and their respective derivatives)? If so, perhaps some note should be made of this in the page. As it is now, the content only uses pro-, but the page title uses pros-. 71.90.130.7 (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The title of the article does need to be changed. The correct term is prothesis, not prosthesis.Ferrarama (talk) 05:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There has been no objection to the dominance of the form prothesis (both this and prosthesis are correct) since this was raised in 2009, and Robert Trask (A Dictionary of Phonetics and Phonology, 1999) agrees, so I have moved the page. Doremo (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)