Template talk:sga-mutation

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Angr in topic aspiration?
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Simplifying the code


You don't need to have the "s"+second character split. You can set it up to just have the initial letter in {{{1}}}, and check on the first letter of the rest.

If you look at User:Catsidhe/sga-lenite, you'll see how that works:

{{ #switch: {{{1|}}} | C = Ch{{{2|}}} | c = ch{{{2|}}} | P = Ph{{{2|}}} | p = ph{{{2|}}} | T = Th{{{2|}}} | t = th{{{2|}}} | S = {{ #switch: {{str left|{{{2|}}}|1}} | C | c | M | m | P | p | T | t = S{{{2|}}} | #default = Ṡ{{{2|}}}}} | s = {{ #switch: {{str left|{{{2|}}}|1}} | c | m | p | t = s{{{2|}}} | #default = ṡ{{{2|}}}}} | F = Ḟ{{{2|}}} | f = ḟ{{{2|}}} | #default = {{{1|}}}{{{2|}}} }} 12:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the suggestion, which I have now implemented. Much simpler! —Angr 14:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply



worth adding aspiration or too straightforward? 04:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Aspiration and Lenition are two names for the same mutation, in Irish linguistics, at least. Lenition is the technically correct term, even though older grammars use Aspiration to describe the mutation even for Modern Irish.
Where Modern Irish has two mutations — lenition and eclipsis — where Old Irish had three: Lenition, Nasalisation (which became eclipsis), and Gemination, which is not regularly spelled even in Old Irish (which is why it isn't included here). Catsidhe (talk) 07:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
Actually, it's no longer believed that Old Irish had a mutation called "Gemination". "Gemination" is simply the absence of lenition. —Angr 09:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
My understanding was that that absence of lenition was the only remaining reliably visible trace of a gemination mutation remaining in Old Irish, and that the Ogham inscriptions aren't an extensive enough corpus to tell one way or the other. Thurneyson describes gemination as only visible when it happens internally anyway, but I don't have access to any recent research, so I'll bow to your scholarship. Catsidhe (talk) 10:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
If it only happens internally, it's a sound change but not a mutation in the usual sense of the term. As for the Ogham inscriptions, I think the problem is rather that consonants in the inscriptions tend to be written double in a very promiscuous way; doubled consonants in Ogham inscriptions do not necessarily indicate phonologically geminated consonants. —Angr 13:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Reply