sword, swollen, etc

Prof Ohala,

In today's lecture you posited that some sound change is motivated by

phonotactic constraints and that sounds like [wu] and [ji] are rare

cross-linguistically because of a lack of modulation between the two

segments. One example you gave was that of 'sword', which bears

evidence of a [w] sound that is no longer present in modern

pronunciations. However, what are we to think about the existence of

such a sequence as [swo] to begin with? If language change moves away

from such a string of sounds, why would they be present at any stage

of a language's history?

Rebekka Puderbaugh

Dear Rebekka,

An interesting and valid question.  I could, of course, answer that the
acoustic-auditory pressure to avoid -wo- sequences is statistical, not
absolute, but the history of 'sword' is interesting and gives some hint as
to how the -wo- sequence came about at least in this case.  Etymologically
it is from Old Engl. sweord, which is from Proto-Gmc. swerdan.  So the -o-
no doubt is the survivor of a monophthongization of an original diphthong
where the rounded element did not abut the -w-.

I also checked the origin of other swo- and swu- words (there are very few
in English):  'swollen' is the ppt of 'swell' and might have been formed
on analogy of the ablaut pattern evident in 'tell-told', 'sell-sold',
'melt-molten' and the like.  'Swoop' has an uncertain history; but its
possible origins can be traced to words that did not have the -wu-
sequence; rather 'swa- or -soo [su].

[Of course, this leaves wound, womb, ... to wonder and worry about.  But as mentioned 

at the start of my reply, I can play the 'statistical' card.]]

JJO