The Correspondence Library

[Drydic]

i have a request (but dont forget about the one Benjaburns made above me).

i am interested in the sound changes from PIE to Proto-Italic, and also the sound changes from there to the main sub-branches of Italic, Latin-Faliscan, and Osco-Umbrian. that's three sets of sound changes, so i'd consider myself lucky if i get even one.

thanks in advance.

Check out the thread itself first, brandrinn! Latin's already here.

PIE to Latin

Of course, I'm not exactly sure where the boundary between Proto-Italic and Latin is there.

One book that I read a year or so ago denied any special connection between Latin-Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian, and reserved the name "Italic" for the latter. As this was an introduction to the IE family, with each chapter written by a specialist in a particular sub-family, and was neither particularly old nor off-the-wall otherwise, I took it at its word. (Sorry I don't remember the title or anything; I believe it had an introductory chapter on PIE by Calvert Watkins.)

In other words, it's quite possible that you won't find the exact lists you're looking for because what you're calling proto-Italic doesn't exist.

THis is one of those areas where the experts can't agree with each other. Some believe that, while others still unite them. There's valid arguements on both sides of the fence. One of the major reasons for this is the fact that the changes from PIE > PItalic seem to just change the exponents of the system, but not radically alter the system in and of itself.

Also if you could find out what the title was we would certainly appreciate it

[Avaja]

/me puts in a request for PFU Finnish and PFU Estonian sound changes.

(I want to try something like Wenedyk, but a bit different: apply Balto-Finnic sound changes to English. If I can find a really comprehensive grammar and lexicon of Vulgar Latin, then I'll substitute that for English.)

I've got a very big list of sound changes ranging from Proto-Ugric to Proto-Saamic > S?mi in a book I recently loaned. Would you appreciate them as well? I will most likely put them up here anyways, but I could put more effort into it if you need them.

[Corumayas]

One book that I read a year or so ago denied any special connection between Latin-Faliscan and Osco-Umbrian, and reserved the name "Italic" for the latter. ...

THis is one of those areas where the experts can't agree with each other. Some believe that, while others still unite them. There's valid arguements on both sides of the fence. One of the major reasons for this is the fact that the changes from PIE > PItalic seem to just change the exponents of the system, but not radically alter the system in and of itself.

Also if you could find out what the title was we would certainly appreciate it

Hmm. Looking through the catalog for the university library I got it from, I think it was either:

An introduction to the Indo-European languages / by Philip Baldi : c1983

or

The Indo-European languages / edited by Anna Giacalone Ramat and Paolo Ramat : 1998

I strongly suspect the latter, but I'm not completely sure. I've probably had both of them checked out at one time or another.

[chris-gr]

...Also, question: You say that Romanian /1/ came from: a > 1 / _N (if N ≠ nn, mm). But, Metaforik says the Romanian orthography represents the etymology: < ? > came from Latin /a/, while < ? > came from Latin /i/. You give the rules for a > ?, but then where did the ? come from?

Sorry to jump in, but there's no etymological difference between <?> and <?>, which were employed to represent the same sound. We know that a stressed /a/ and /e/ in nasal position became an /?/ (formerly /?/).
During the Ceauşescu regime only the letter ? was used to transcribe the sound /ɨ/ ([1]). Today, <?> is used as the first or last letter of words, and <?> when it occurs in the middle of the word. Let's not forget that until the first years of the 20th century, there were four letters that represented the same sound: ?, ?, ? and ?.
It's not about etymology, it's about graphistic conventions.

[Whimemsz]

( removing post filled with liiiieeees )

[Whimemsz]

Some Proto-Algonquian --> Blackfoot changes, from Proulx, Paul (1989). A Sketch of Blackfoot Historical Phonology. International Journal of American Linguistics, 55:43-82. I'm not sure about the order of many of these changes, nor am I positive that I understood all of them correctly. But here they are.

! = Except for...
0 = Zero (no sound)
# = Word boundary
C = Consonant
O = Obstruent
W = Semivowel
B = Back vowel
$ = stem boundary

Most characters representing phoenemes have their expected values. <y> is /j/, colons mark long vowels in Proto-Algonquian and doubling the vowels marks length in Blackfoot. *ł was probably a lateral fricative. <?> is a glottal stop.

First, generally unconditioned changes not involving clusters:

*č, *l, *ł, *? > t /_
*s > xs /!#_ (that is, when not word-initial)
*y > s /_
*h > 0 /_

Conditioned changes / Some changes involving clusters:

*č, *? > s /#_
*?l, *ł > ?~y~0 (apparently in free variation) /_
*nl > s /_

Other clusters:

*hp > xp /_
*hk > xk /_
*hkw > ?k /_
*hł > sst /_
*hs > ss /_
*mp > ?p /_
*nkw > ?? /_
*nt > xt /_
*nč > ?t /_
*ns > x~s (both attested) /_
*tp > xp /_
*tk > x~ss (both attested) /_
*čp > ?p /_
*?p > ssp /_
*?k > xk /_
*łp > x~ss (both attested) /_

Now, back to other conditioned changes, involving *x:

*x > ss /i_
*x > ss /#e_
*x > ss /ya_
*x > ss /ke_
*x > ss /e(:)_s

Insertions and deletions of s:

*t > st /i(:)_
*t > st /#e_
*t > ts /_i
*t > ts /_e(:)
*t > ts /_a

(These include *t 's which have resulted from earlier changes)

*k > ks /_i(:)
*sss > ss /_

Vowels:

*a: > aa /W_ (but does not apply _CC, _C:, or _#)
*a: > a /_
*o: > o /_
*o > o /_
*a > i /!#_, !_# (that is, everywhere except word boundaries)
*a > a /#_, _#
*e > a /_#
*e > i /_
*e: > i /_
*i: > i /_
*i > i /_

Some other vowel changes and changes involving semivowels:
(I don't know if these occur before the vowel changes or after)

*e > i /#_, k_
*a, *e, *i > o /_kw
*i > yi /o:w_#
*i > yi /i:y_#
*w > y /l_i#
*w > y /k_i#
*lw > liw /_
*w > 0 /C_

All of the following changes occur between two consonants:

*yi: > i /_
*yi > i /_
*ya > i /_
*owa: > oo /_
*awa > oo /_
*awe > oo /_
*awi > o(yi) /_
*i:wa > ii /_
*e:wa > ii /_
*aye > ii /_
*ayi > ii /_
*ani > ii /_
*ahi > i /_
*a:hi > aa /_

More semivowel changes:

*y > iy /#C_, C_V#
*aw > ow /_
*eLwi > ii /_ (I don't know what the <L> stands for)
*i(:)wi > ii /_ (medially)
*i(:)wi > i /_#
*y > s /_ elsewhere
*w > y /_i
*iy, *y, *i: > y /C_B
*iyi > ii /_
*owi > oi /_C
*oni > ui /_C
*awi > ai /_C

Elision and gemination (there are some conditioning factors for these changes which I'm unsure of):

*tem > mm /_ (including *t from earlier *ł)
*ken > nn /_
*pen > nn /_
*ket > tt /_ (or > ss [?])
*ke(h)? > tt /_
*kes > ss /_
*kwes > ss /_
*keł > ss /_
*e > 0 /O_ in the first syllable (not entirely regular)

More changes:

*me, *ne > 0 /#_O (followed by truncation of following x)
*we, *wi: > o /#_
*y > y /#V_
*tsi > 0 /$_OO (before a prefix; the first obstruent of the follow cluster then becomes ?)

[Dewrad]

Several people have requested Latin > Italian soundchanges, so I've taken them from Peter Boyd-Bowman's From Latin to Romance in Sound Charts. It should be noted that due to my source they are not in any sort of chronological order, nor do they indicate some of the more sporadic changes, and the sound changes are for Vulgar rather than Classical Latin.

r > 0 /a_ju#
tVk > dZ /[-stress]
au > o
au > u /#_ (sporadically, e.g. audire > udire)
k > tS /_i,e,E
kVl > kkj /[-stress]
kt > tt
E > jE /[+stress] (not before /dZ/, /L/ or /J/, however)
g > 0 /a_V
j > dZ /#_, V_V
g > dZ /_i,e,E
dj > dZ
gj > dZ
lj > L
nj > J
gn > J
O > uo /[+stress] (not after /j/, nor before /dZ/ or /L/)
b > v /V_
l > j /#C_
Cj > CCj /V_V
sj > dZ
{t k d m n s} > 0 /_#
r > 0 /_# (in polysyllables only)
ta:te > "ta /_#
t > d /V_r
k > g /V_r
skj > S
stj > S
ssj > S
tj > ts
ks > ss
w > gw

For those interested in Occitan's evolution, I suggest this page.

[Whimemsz]

I posted an older version of this many pages back, but I've revised it a bit, and it's relevant to the discussion, so here is again:

Very incomplete Proto-Algonquian to Ojibwe changes

Just a little update. I now know that the change of wi > o happened within about the last century. Edward Wilson's Ojibwe grammar, published in 1874, has words with <wi>/<we> where modern Ojibwe has o. For examle, he has <ningwis> for "my son" (modern SW Ojibwe ingozis; I'm not sure where the extra -is came from). I should also add that the wi/wi: > o/o: change by no means occurred in all environments. A preceding vowel blocked the change, and there were some other places it didn't occur, but I haven't fully figured them out.

Also, apparently, the change of l --> n happened in the 1800s as well. Also, replace all my <th>s in my sound change lists to <lh>. I've become fully convinced by Marc Picard's (and others') arguments that PA *th was actually the lateral fricative /K/.

NB FOR PEOPLE READING THIS YEARS LATER: That /wi/ > /o/ thing I was totally wrong about, ignore it. Also who knows what PA "th"/"lh"/whatever actually was.

[vohpenonomae]

I posted an older version of this many pages back, but I've revised it a bit, and it's relevant to the discussion, so here is again:

Very incomplete Proto-Algonquian to Ojibwe changes

Just a little update. I now know that the change of wi > o happened within about the last century. Edward Wilson's Ojibwe grammar, published in 1874, has words with <wi>/<we> where modern Ojibwe has o. For examle, he has <ningwis> for "my son" (modern SW Ojibwe ingozis; I'm not sure where the extra -is came from). I should also add that the wi/wi: > o/o: change by no means occurred in all environments. A preceding vowel blocked the change, and there were some other places it didn't occur, but I haven't fully figured them out.

Also, apparently, the change of l --> n happened in the 1800s as well. Also, replace all my <th>s in my sound change lists to <lh>. I've become fully convinced by Marc Picard's (and others') arguments that PA *th was actually the lateral fricative /K/.

Picard's "On the Naturalness of Algonquian /K/" is a milestone; I'm pretty much with him, too. I'd also like to see the theory of natural change he sketches in that paper to be further developed.

[Whimemsz]

Now, some of the most fascinating sound changes, Proto-Algonquian to Proto-Arapaho-Atsina, and thence to Arapaho and Atsina (this is from Ives Goddard, 1974. "An Outline of the Historical Phonology of Arapaho and Atsina." International Journal of American Linguistics 40:102-16).

V = Any vowel
C = Any consonant
W = Any semivowel (/w/ or /j/)
Ø = Zero (no sound)
# = Word boundary


The Proto-Algonquian phonological inventory was:

*/p t ʧ k/ (and also sounds symbolized with <ʔ>, <x>, and <ç> in clusters; these were probably respectively [ʔ], [s], and [r])
*/s θ ʃ h/ (where the actual value of <θ> is disputed; it may have been /ɬ/)
*/m n/
*/w l j/
*/i iː e eː a aː o oː/


Proto-Algonquian to Proto-Arapaho-Atsina:

*(W)V → Ø /__# (That is, final vowels are lost, along with a preceding semivowel, if there is one)
*we → *o
*o(ː) → *i(ː)
*W → Ø /C__i(ː)
*e → *i /#__
*θ → *ʃ /C__ and __C
*h → Ø /__C
*s, *m, *n, *r → *ʔ /__C
*ʧ → *ʃ /__p
*w → *j
*j → *n /#__ and V__
*k → Ø
*p → *k
*s → *n /#__
*s → *h
*r → *h /C__
*r → n
*ʧ → *θ
V[long] → V[short] /__CC
*a(ː), o(ː) → *ɔ(ː)
*e(ː) → *ɛ(ː)
*ʔh → hʔ

The resulting Proto-Arapaho-Atsina phonological inventory was:

*/t k ʔ/
*/θ ʃ h/
*/m n/
*/j/
*/i iː ɛ ɛː ɔ ɔː/

More changes tomorrow.

[EDIT 5/28/2012: updated]

[Whimemsz]

Proto-Arapaho-Atsina to Arapaho

*(V[short])ʔ → (Vː)Ø /__C (If a preceding vowel existed, it only lengthened as long as it was itself not directly preceded by a vowel)
*i(ː) → ɨ(ː) /ɔ(ː)C₀[!dental]__
Ø → ʔ /CV[short]__#
*ʃ, *m → x, w /__[ɔ(ː),ɨ(ː)] and /[ɔ(ː),ɨ(ː)]__#
*ʃ, *m → x, b /ɔ(ː)__ɛ(ː)
*ʃ, *k, *m → s, ʧ, b /__[ɛ(ː),i(ː),j] and /[ɛ(ː),i(ː)]__#
(V[short])N → Ø /__#
Ø → h /#__V
*ɛː → ɛi /j__
ɔ(ː) → ɛ(ː) /Cj__ (Sometimes)
*n → Ø /__j
*j → Ø /C__
*h → Ø /__#

The final Arapaho phonemic inventory is:

/t ʧ k ʔ/
/b/
/θ s x h/
/n/
/w j/
/i iː ɨ ɨː ɛ ɛː ɔ ɔː/


Proto-Arapaho-Atsina to Gros Ventre

*ʔh → hʔ
*(V[short])ʔ → (V[long; falling tone])Ø /__C[!j] (If a preceding vowel existed, it only lengthened as long as it was itself not directly preceded by a vowel)
*j → Ø /[ʃ,θ]__
*i → u /ɔ(ː)__
*ʃ, *θ, *m → θ, tθ, w /__ɔ(ː)
*ʃ, *θ, *m, *k → θ, tθ, b, ʧ /__ɛ(ː)
*ʃ, *θ, *m, *k, *t → s, ʦ, bʲ, ʦ, tʲ /__[i(ː),j,#]
(V[short])N → Ø /__#
Ø → ʔ /#__V
*tθ → t
*n → Ø /__j

Lending the final Gros Ventre phonemic inventory:

/t tʲ ʦ ʧ k ʔ/
/b bʲ/
/θ s h/
/n/
/w j/
/i iː u uː ɛ ɛː ɔ ɔː/

[EDIT: 5/28/2012: updated]

[vohpenonomae]

Just one note on PA:

Phonologically, PA semivowels are vowels; /i/ and /o/ become non-syllabic before other vowels. But the semivowels attain phonemic status in many of the daughters.

[lelandpaul]

Resurrection! ("I'm not dead yet!" says the thread.)

I'm looking for the changes from Old Irish to Modern Irish (I realize there's a step or two in the middle, there) and am not finding so much through WorldCat and my library. Anybody have anything that might help me?

(I've just requested some resources from the library... if no one has responded by the time they arrive and they turn out to be useful, I'll post what I have here.)

-lelandpaul

[Dauyn]

Heya lelandpaul,

I've posted those, earlier in this thread. If it's not what you need, let me know, and I can provide something better.

[lelandpaul]

I've posted those, earlier in this thread. If it's not what you need, let me know, and I can provide something better.

You sure about that? All I can find is the PIE > Proto-Celtic changes you posted. (However, you seem to have gotten those from the McCone source that I just got sent my way on interlibrary loan, meaning I may have requested what I need after all! *whew*)

-lelandpaul

[Dauyn]

Ack! You're right. Well, you've got McCone on the way, so you should be set. Warning - it's dense, and Mccone is known for his vituperativeness... It will not disappoint!

[lelandpaul]

Dense, I can handle. Glad to know it's got what I need... Thanks much.

-lelandpaul

[Petusek]

Hello, I'm desperately looking for the correspondences. Could anyone help me, please? Thanks in advance.

Petusek

P.S.: We could make a separate web site to present and collect all those developements. What do you think about it?

[Circeus]

I think it'dbe more useful if you stated which one you're looking for.

[Petusek]

I think it'dbe more useful if you stated which one you're looking for.

If you looked at the subject of the post, you'd know that , but I admit I should have repeated it in the message, thus:

Athabascan + Eyak + Tlingit

I'm interested in sound and morphological correspondences. I also wonder what exactly makes some linguists think that Haida is related, too. Thanks for any help or advice in advance.

Sincerely,

Petusek

[Avaja]

Finno-Saamic > North Sámi (vowels)

Circumflex detonates lowered vowel (ê = mid front unrounded vowel etc.)

V - o > V - O (the exact phonetic value of this <o> is not known)
V - ä > V - a (could have happened later)
y > i
i > e
u > o
ê - e > ê - ê (a few unaffected)
ô - ê > o - ê
ô - A > O - A
ô - O > O - O
ê - A > E - A
ê - O > E - O

A - e > ô: - e (could have been a short vowel)
a - e > ê: - e (same here)
A - A > ô: - A (a few unaffected)
a - A > A - A
a - A > e - A
V:[+high] > V
V[-high] > V:
O: > u / _Ce
A: > i / _j (second syllable)

e > @\
V - A: > V - E: (except before third syllable @\)
@\ > @_c
ô: > uô
O: > ôA
ê > iê
E: > êA
V - E: > V - ê:

uô > u: / _CV[+high]
ôa > ô: / _CV[+high]
iê > i: / _CV[+high]
êa > ê: / _CV[+high]
u:\ > u
i:\ > i
ê:\ > ê:
O:\ > O:
A:\ > A:
@_c >
VV - ê: > V:/V - i
VV - O: > V:/V - u
VV - A: > V:/V - 3\_o

[Dauyn]

Hey Avaja,

Maybe you know... are there any good books in English of proto-uralic?

[Ceresz]

Cool thread!
I would like to see Old Norse Swedish or something like that, if pausible
Awesome stuff and... thanks!
~Skurai

[Celestine]

I could really use the sound changes from P-Celtic to Irish and from Proto Celtic to any mainland dialect. (As I understand it this would eliminate Breton since it is descended from Welsh.) The sound changes from Irish to Scotish and Welsh to Breton would also be welcome.

Also, anything on the evolution of Turkish (and its ancestors) would be appreciated!

[Dauyn]

Heya Celestine -

I can provide the Celtic sound changes, most of them anyway, but it will probably take me a month or so - I'm incredibly busy right now. Can you wait?