# Regularity of assimilation/dissimilation



## Gavril

Hello,

Are assimilation and dissimilation generally thought to be irregular processes (i.e., processes that only occur in certain words), or are they expected to apply to all relevant phonetic environments of a language?


I don't know of many examples of regular assimilation. For example, 

- Latin _barba_ "beard" (< *_farba_ < *_bhardha_) is probably the result of assimilation, yet words with a very similar phonetic structure, such as Old Latin _forbea _"food", fail to show this assimilation

- Latvian _debesis_ "heaven, sky" can be derived from earlier *_neb_- (cf. Latin _nebula_ "cloud") via assimilation of *_n_- to non-nasal -_b-_, but no such assimilation has occurred in Latvian _naba_ "navel"

Similarly, most examples of dissimilation that I know of are irregular (or at least are not supported by more than one example). E.g., Latin _tenebrae_ "darkness" is thought to be dissimilated from earlier *_te*m*e*b*rae, _but _membrum_ "limb" did not become *_nembrum._

Is irregularity thought to be the exception or the rule when it comes to assimilation/dissimilation of sounds?

Thanks for any help


----------



## ahvalj

Manuals tell that Latin has at least one example of a stable dissimilation: the suffixes _-āli-, -clo-, -blo-_ and _-bli-_ change _l_ to _r_ when attached to a stem containing _l_:
_navālis, aequālis — militāris, lūnāris
animal, tribūnal — exemplar, calcar
piāclum, perīclum — lucrum, sepulcrum
stabulum — lavābrum
amābilis — salūbris_

When the stem contained both _l_ and _r_, the suffix kept its original form: _plūrālis, līberālis_. The exceptions like _glaciālis_ and _lētālis_ can be explained as having been formed after this dissimilation stopped working.

_Debesis_ in Lithuanian can be influenced by _dangus_ "sky", not sure about Latvian. In _namas_ instead of *_damas_ "house" the direction is opposite.

Update. Also, it is important that your observations are valid only for the distant assimilation/dissimilation: the adjacent sounds change according to strict laws and this latter type of changes has countless examples in virtually any language.

Update 2. An intermediate position between adjacent and distant assimilation occupies the umlaut, i. e. an anticipation of some aspect of the vowel quality. As a rule, umlauts are rather regular across the languages, though their results can be levelled back after the assimilation stops working, e. g. after the disappearance of the original vowel that caused it.


----------



## Gavril

ahvalj said:


> Update. Also, it is important that your observations are valid only for the distant assimilation/dissimilation: the adjacent sounds change according to strict laws and this latter type of changes has countless examples in virtually any language.



Right, I should have clarified that the question is about distant (rather than adjacent) assimilation/dissimilation.



> Update 2. An intermediate position between adjacent and distant assimilation occupies the umlaut, i. e. an anticipation of some aspect of the vowel quality. As a rule, umlauts are rather regular across the languages, though their results can be levelled back after the assimilation stops working, e. g. after the disappearance of the original vowel that caused it.




Umlaut seems like a straightforward case of distant assimilation (assimilation of back vowels to front vowels, and assimilation of lower vowels to high vowels), insofar as it is independent of intervocalic consonants.


----------



## ThomasK

What I wonder about is: is there some logic for dissimilation? I have the feeling that assimilation is almost natural, almost like wear and tear, whereas dissimilation ... ? For example: is there some reason for "nivel" (niveau) developing into "level"? _Peregrino _(the through-the-field-wanderer) into _pellegrino_? IN the latter case I suppose the sounds are phonetically close, but n/l? Any ideas, anyone?


----------



## Swatters

ThomasK said:


> IN the latter case I suppose the sounds are phonetically close, but n/l?



Both are alveolar sonorants.


----------



## ThomasK

That sounds familiar, but far away… But I understand. L/r are liquidae, I guess - or ...?


----------



## Swatters

Sonorant are continuous consonants (i.e. not like /t/ or /d/ where the airstream stops completely during their articulation) that don't produce turbulences (as fricatives like /s/ or /z/ would).

Liquids are a subset of sonorants, as are glides (/j/, /w/, etc) and nasals (/n/, /m/, etc).

So /n/ and /l/ are pronounced with the tongue in a similar position and the same strength of airflow, so switching from [n] to [ɾ] or [l] just involve the relatively small change of closing your velar flap when producing them


----------



## ThomasK

Great to read those explanations, thanks! I knew about the plosives and the fricatives and the glides, but did not know (remember?) the sonorants. I think that subcategory is not common in Dutch), have never heard the term as such. But sonorants make life so much more beautiful, I guess... ;-)


----------



## Catagrapha

Is dissimilation by dropping one regular (e.g., lusignolo > usignolo)?


----------



## ThomasK

Not sure, but I suppose so: you change, in casu drop (…) the "parallel" letter.


----------



## bearded

Catagrapha said:


> lusignolo > usignolo


But here I understand that the initial L was confused with an article, and therefore dropped. _Lusignolo > l'usignolo.
Etimologia : usignolo, usignuolo;_


----------



## ThomasK

Oh yes, that happens regularly. I do not know whether theis explicit motive for this change turns the phenomenon into something different from a dissimilation...


----------



## Catagrapha

What about assimilation by adding one (e.g., Romeo > Romero)?


----------



## ThomasK

That would be an intrusive 'r', I think, but that would not be assimilation, but more like reduplication...


----------



## apmoy70

Dissimilation is one of the characteristics of Demotic Modern Greek (note that this register is not the same with Standard MoGr, demotic (i.e. of the people) is the language variant (L) that evolved naturally from Koine > Byzantine Gr > Demotic Greek).
It expects the dissimilation of the consonant clusters /pt/ & /kt/ > /ft/ & /xt/ and the height dissimilation of /e/ > /i/ in the environment adjacent to /a/ or /o/ e.g:
-Classical Greek masc. *«κτίστης» ktístēs* --> _founder, builder, restorer_ > Demotic Greek *«χτίστης»* [ˈxtis.tis] -->_builder, stone mason_ (deverbative from the ancient v. *«κτίζω» ktízō*)
-Classical Greek v. *«πταίω» ptaí̯ō* --> _to nudge, crash into, stumble, err, have bad luck_ (PIE *pi(e)h₂-u-ie/o- _to strike_ cf Lith. pjauti, _to cut_) > Demotic Greek *«φταίω»* [ˈfte.ɔ] --> _to be to blame, be at fault, be in the wrong_
-Classical Greek masc. *«ἀετός» ăĕtós* --> _eagle_ > Demotic Greek masc. *«ἀητός»* & *«ἀϊτός»* [ai̯ˈtɔs] (both spellings are common, the former is preferred over the latter in school orthography) --> _eagle_.

In Standard MoGr due to the fusion of Demotic (L) with the artificial Katharevousa (H) register, we have various collateral words (words with dissimilation when they derive from the Lower Register, that coexist with ancient ones re-introduced from the Higher Register) thus:
-Standard MoGr *«φταίω»* [ˈfte.ɔ] --> _to be to blame, be at fault, be in the wrong_ coexists with *«πταίσμα»* [ˈptez.ma] (neut.) --> _(legal lang.) misdemeanour_ < Classical Gr *«πταῖσμα» ptaî̯smă* (neut.) --> _stumble, trip, false step, mistake, error, fault, failure, misfortune_
-Standard MoGr *«αητός»* [ai̯ˈtɔs] (masc.) --> _eagle_ coexists with *«αετοφωλιά»* [a.e.tɔ.fɔˈʎa] (fem.) --> _eagle's nest_ (*«ἀετός» ăĕtós* + *«φωλέᾱ» pʰōléā* --> _lair, hole of wild animals_ (probably Pre-Greek) which becomes *«φωλιά»* [fɔˈʎa] (fem.) with synizesis), *«αετορράχη»* [a.e.tɔˈɾa.çi] (fem.) --> _eagle's ridge, steep mountain_ («ἀετός» + *«ῥάχις» rʰắkʰis* (fem) which becomes *«ράχη»* [ˈɾa.çi] (fem.) in MoGr)).


----------



## Cenzontle

> What about assimilation by adding one (e.g., Romeo > Romero)?





> That would be an intrusive 'r', I think, but that would not be assimilation, but more like reduplication...


Neither, in my opinion.
"Assimilation" refers to a *phonological *process, sounds influencing sounds.
But don't you suppose (Spanish?) _romeo _> _romero _is the result of a *morphological* substitution, 
by analogy with the many other (Spanish?) words in "-ero"?


----------



## ThomasK

Burt can you expect that kind of morphological substitution when it is a proper name? I wonder..


----------



## Dymn

What about Spanish mn > mr > mbr: _hombre, nombre, hembra, hambre, sembrar, _etc.


----------



## Cenzontle

> can you expect that kind of morphological substitution when it is a proper name?


Oh, I was thinking of the common nouns, Old Spanish "romeo" and modern "romero", synonyms of "peregrino".


> What about Spanish mn > mr ... ?


That dissimilation is fairly regular; I can't think of an exception.


----------

