zompist bboard

Whew! I've worked most of last night, this morning, and this evening getting these done, but here is a (rather detailed) sound changes list from Latin to Portuguese. As before, when I underline letters, those should be read as their X-SAMPA values. Note that in the first section (Latin vowels to Portuguese), if a vowel does not have a length marker after it, assume it to be short.

Also, just to let you know, all of the changes I've posted here I've done on my computer in full IPA and with accented characters, so when I post them, I have to try to convert to SAMPA and drop diacritics. If you have any questions about the sound changes I've posted here anywhere, feel free to PM me or ask for the document with the changes in IPA.

"..." means a space containing at least one syllable break.



C = consonants
V = vowels
N = nasals
L = liquids

Vulgar Latin > Portuguese

h > ? / _
rs > ss / _
n > ? / _s
VV > V: / _ (if V = V)
V > ? / ?V ? L_(C)(C)V(C)#, _L(C)(C)V(C)# (irregular)
V > ? / ?V ? s_t(C)V(C)# (irregular)
u > w / _V (between first and stressed syllables)
w > u / _?V, > ? / _V
au > o
au > a / _ ? ?u
e > i / ?_ ? i:#
i: > i / ?_, _ ? ?V
i: > ? / [k, s]_#,
i: > e / _#
e > E / ?_
[i, e:] > e / ?_
[i, e:, e] > e / _ ? ?V
[i, e:, e, ae] > e / _#
u: > u
ui: > ui / _#
[u, o:] > o / ?_
o > O / ?_
[u, o:, o] > o / _ ? ?V
[u:, u, o:, o] > o > u / _#
[a:, a] > a
oe > e
ae > E / ?_
E > e / _ ? u#
O > o / _ ? u#
[olt, okt] > ujt > ut / _
a5 > o / _
5 > w / V_Ca
o > u / _ ? ?V
e > ? / el_#
V > a / _[n, r](C)V(C)# (irreg.)
V > V~ / "_N$C
O~ > o~ / _
N > ? / V~_$C (unless if C is a plosive)
V > V~ / _N$V
V > V~ / #N_ (rare)
N > ? / V~_$V
[a~, a~e, o~e] > a~o / _#
V~ > V (when not stressed or in the final syllable)
V~V > V~ / _ (if V = V)
i~ > iJ / _
e > o / _ ? m?V (irregular)
V > ? / _ ? ?V (irregular)
e > ? / [l, n, r, s, k]_#
e > ? / ?[i, e]_#
e > i / _(C)(C)V(C)#
[e, i] > ? / [l, m, r]_, k_t (between first and stressed syllables)
o > ? / _[r, l] (between first and tonic syllables)

(if there are multiple vowels between the initial and tonic syllables, the vowel directly before the tonic is dropped)

k > ts > s / #_[i, e]
k > g / #_a, #_r (rare)
g > g_j > d_j > dZ > Z / #_[i, e]
j > dZ > Z / #_
pl > S, pr / #_ (pr is the semi-learned form)
bl > br / _
fl > S, fr / #_ (fr is semi-learned)
[fl, skl] > S / _
ngl > J / _
s > S / V_C[-vcd]V
s > Z / V_C[+vcd]V
kl > kL > tS > S / #_
[kl, gl] > L / _
gl > l / #_
k_w > kw / #_?a
k_w > k / #_[i, e, o]
k_w > g / V_[i, e]
k_w > k / VC_[a, i, e]
k_w > gw / V_a
g_w > g / #_[i, e, o]
g_w > gw / #_
g_w > gw / C_a
dj > dZ > Z / #_
? > e / #_sC
b > v / V_[V, r]
d > ? / V_V
g > ?, Z / V_[i, e] (Z is learned)
g > j / V_r
pl > br / V_V
bl > br, l / V_V
[p, t] > [+vcd] / V_V
[p, t, k] > [+vcd] / V_r
pt > t / V_V
ps > s / V_V
kt > jt / V_V
nkt > nt / V_V
ks > S / V_V
gn > J / V_V
tj > z, s / V_V
tj > s / C_V
dj > dZ > Z / V_V
dj > dz > ts > s / r_V
ndj > nts > ns > J / V_V
sj > jZ / V_V
j > ? / i_ZV
ssj > jS / V_V
nj > J / V_V
mnj > J / V_V
lj > L / V_V
rj > jr / V_V
kj > ts > s / V_V
gj > Z, j / V_V
pj > jb / V_V
[bj, vj] > jv / V_V
mj > jm (irregular)
CC > C / _ (if C = C, unless if C = r)
C > ? / C1_C2 (unless if C2 = L)
ks > js / _#
f > v / V_V (irregular)
s > z / V_V
l > ? / V_V
a > ? / ?O_#
sk > jS / V_[i, e]
k > z / V_[i, e]
k > g / V_V (unless if V2 = O)
j > ?, Z / V_V
b > v / VL_V
mn > n / _
[e, i] > ? / ? ? [L, N]_(C)(C)V(C)#
o > ? / _(C)(C)V(C)#
e > j / [a, o, u]_
a > e / ?_j
o > u / ?_J
VV > V / _ (if V = V; irregular)
d > ? / V_V (in Portugal)



Pharazon, that book is really good, but I do have some complaints with the style. Besides the transcription they use, I'm wondering, what the heck does this mean: ?z evolves into a voiced s? ? And for that matter, how come it never refers to 'z', but always to 'voiced s'?


And Pharazon, you complained when you took up Italian after I took Catalan (which I'll do next), and now you got a request for it!

Maknas wrote:And Pharazon, you complained when you took up Italian after I took Catalan (which I'll do next), and now you got a request for it!

That's because the difference between Italian and Latin, phonologically, is about the same as that between Mississippi and Alabama English.

pharazon wrote:

Maknas wrote:And Pharazon, you complained when you took up Italian after I took Catalan (which I'll do next), and now you got a request for it!

That's because the difference between Italian and Latin, phonologically, is about the same as that between Mississippi and Alabama English.

Italian and Latin aren't that different.

Space Dracula wrote:

pharazon wrote:

Maknas wrote:And Pharazon, you complained when you took up Italian after I took Catalan (which I'll do next), and now you got a request for it!

That's because the difference between Italian and Latin, phonologically, is about the same as that between Mississippi and Alabama English.

Italian and Latin aren't that different.

You're right, but I couldn't think of anything better at the time. Perhaps a better example of similarity might've been Dudicon's idiolect vs. Jed from The Beverly Hillbillies.

pharazon wrote:

Space Dracula wrote:

pharazon wrote:

Maknas wrote:And Pharazon, you complained when you took up Italian after I took Catalan (which I'll do next), and now you got a request for it!

That's because the difference between Italian and Latin, phonologically, is about the same as that between Mississippi and Alabama English.

Italian and Latin aren't that different.

You're right, but I couldn't think of anything better at the time. Perhaps a better example of similarity might've been Dudicon's idiolect vs. Jed from The Beverly Hillbillies.

I have yet to talk to Dudicon, but that sounds on the mark.

When I was a kid, my grandma sometimes called me Jethro because the bowl I'd use for cereal was so huge.

Hey, I like a big breakfast.

pharazon wrote:Maybe you could figure out Proto-Celtic > Welsh from http://www.aber.ac.uk/~awcwww/s/p5_lexicon.html and get back to us.

I shall do my best...but...I have no experience so I am sure to make mistakes

Grr...all of this is way over my head.

Found b>f after vowels...

But I knew that.

...

...

So yeah

Here's Latin > Catalan

Same rules as before - underlined capital letters should be read as X-SAMPA, not as categories. PM me if you want a copy in IPA.


C = consonants
V = vowels
N = nasals
L = liquids

Vulgar Latin > Catalan

h > ? / _
n > ? / _s
[m, n] > ? / _#
t > ? / _#
V > ? / ?V?C_L(C)V(C)# (irregular) < that is, a vowel may drop in the unstressed penult if preceded by a consonant and followed by a liquid
V > ? / ?V?L_C(C)V(C)# (irregular)
V > ? / ?V?s_t(C)V(C)# (irregular)
u > w > ? (when in unstressed penult or between first and tonic syllables; irregular)
i: > i / ?_, _ ? ?V (that is, when stressed or pre-tonic)
[i, e:] > e, E / ?_
e > E, e / ?_
[i, e:, e] > e / _ ? ?V
i > j / ?V_#
u: > u / ?_, _ ??V
au > a / _ ? ?u
[u, o:] > o / ?_
o > O / ?_
[u, o:, o] > o / _ ? ?V (> u in East Catalan)
u > w / ?E_#
[a:, a] > a
oe > e, E
ae > e / ?_, _ ? ?V
au > O / ?_
au > o / _ ? ?V
o > u / _a
o > u / _ ? ?V (irregular)
VV > V: / _

For outcomes of word-final vowels, see down below

ndj > J / _
dj > dZ > Z / _
? > e / #_sC
l > ? / [o, u]_CV
l > w / V_CV (although l was usually restored later)
mn > nn > J / _
pr > Br / V_V
tr > ?r / V_V
kr > Gr / V_V
br > Br, wr / V_V
dr > jr, wr / V_V
gr > jr, r, gr / V_V
ng > J / _[i, e]
pl > bl / V_V
bl > wl / V_V (irregular)
kl > L / V_V
gl > L / V_V (irregular)
sk > S / V_[i, e]
pt > t / V_V
kt > jt / V_V
nkt > nt / V_V
ks > S / V_V
ks > js / _#
gn > J / V_V
tj > ? / V_V
stj > S / _
tj > s / C_
sj > jz / V_V
ssj > jS / V_V
nj > J / V_V
mnj > mni, J / V_V
lj > L / V_V
rj > jr / V_V
kj > ts / V_V
gj > Z / V_V
[bj, vj] > wZ / _??V
[bj, vj] > bj / ?V?_
ja > je / #_ (irregular)
V > ? / _ ? ?V (rare)
? > e, o / CL_#, rr_#
a > e / ?V?_(C)(C)V(C)# (that is, in the penult)
V > ? / ?V?_(C)(C)V(C)# (irregular; e is kept before n)
b > v / V_V
v > ? / V_?[o, u]
p > b / V_V
f > v / V_V (irregular)
t > d / V_V
s > z / ?V? V_V
s > ? / V_V ? ?V
g > ?, Z / V_[i, e] (Z is learned)
g > ? / V_V ? ?V
k > ? / V_[i, e]
k > g / V_V
j > Z / V_V

These next two changes are awkward - Basically, when the final vowel drops off down below, the newly-final d should become w; BUT d should also have become z and disappeared before the final vowels drop off, leaving a dilema... I'm not certain how this should be interpretted

d > z > ? / V_V
d > w / _V#

I: > ? / _#
[i, e:, e, ae] > ? / _(C)#
[u:, u, o:, o] > ? / _#
V (except for a) > ? (between first and tonic syllables; except when C_CC, _n)
(if there are multiple vowels between the initial and tonic syllables, the vowel directly before the tonic is usually dropped)
w > ? u_#
j > tS / _#
gj > i / _#
ts > w / _#
z > s / _#
n > ? / _#
ts > s / V_V
[b, v] > w / V_#
d > t / _#
l > L / #_
k > ts > s / #_[i, e]
g > Z / #_[i, e]
j > dZ > Z / #_
k_w > k / #_[i, e]
k_w > k / C_V
k_w > g / V_[i, e]
k_w > k / #_a ??V
k_w > gw / V_a
k_w > kw / #_?a
g_w > g / #_[i, e]
g_w > gw / #_a
g_w > g / C_[i, e]
g_w > gw / C_a
mb > mm > m / V_V
mn > mr > mbr / _
kr > wr / V_V
[bt, vt] > wt / V_V
gd > d / V_V
ll > L / _
L > l / ?i_
nn > J / _
C > ? / C_C (unless if last C = L)
[a, o] > ? / #_ (rare)
O > o / _N$C
e > E / _v
o > u / ?_[J, nk, ng]
e > i / ?_[nk, ng] (irregular)
aj > ej > ee > e / _ (irregular)
aj > ej / ?_S (irregular)
Ej > jEj > i / ?_
Oj > uei > u, ui / ?_
E > e (when not _[rr, l, rC[-labial], nr] or _ ? w#)
e > E (in Eastern Catalan)


The vowel developments (especially between E and W Catalan) seem really complicated. I've tried to get down what I could of these changes.

Oh, and Phar, I have a question about your Romanian changes...

You show h > 0 early on, as happened in Vulgar Latin and continued throughout all of the Romance languages. Romanian reflects this too, as in Rm. "or?", and Sp. "hora" (with the h dropped orthographically too)

But, I know that Romanian does in fact have an /h/, and is the only Romance language that does (although French did have one up until the 1700s). Where did this H come from?

boomajoom wrote:Also, does anyone have PIE > Proto-Celtic and Proto-Celtic > Welsh?

O.K. Here's a brief and extremely discriminatory survey of changes from Proto-Celtic > Welsh. I haven't shown Svarabhakti or gone into detail about i-affection. Strictly speaking this produces Middle Welsh, although there haven't really been that many changes between MW and the literary register of ModW (sj > S, for example). Giving seperate sound changes for the dialects would take waaay to long, and frankly I'd find it rather difficult even for my own idiolect.

kw > p
V: > V /_#
ei > e:
st > ss (not in all cases, still some unexplained cases in MW e.g. clust < *klousta:)
ai > E
s > 0 /V_V
V > @ /_(C)#, also in proclitics
xs > x
au, eu, ou > O
u: > y:
oi > u:
O: > u:
j > D /V_
u > o /_Ca
i > e /_Ca
y: > -i-
p, t, k > b, d, g /_V
b, d, g, m > v, D, G, v /_V
a: > O:
(i-affection)
V > 0 /_#
mb, nd, ng > mm, nn, NN
e > i /_n,m,N
$ > h /V_
V > 0 /_[+intertonic]
pp, tt, kk > f, T, x
p, t, k > f, T x /r,l_
GC > iC
xt > ith
G > i /C_V
E: > ui
O: > au /_[+stress]
lt > llt
w > gw /#_
mp, nt, nk > mh, nh, Nh
0 > @ /#_sC
l > ll /#_
r > rh /#_
G > @ /_#

Maknas wrote:Oh, and Phar, I have a question about your Romanian changes...

You show h > 0 early on, as happened in Vulgar Latin and continued throughout all of the Romance languages. Romanian reflects this too, as in Rm. "or?", and Sp. "hora" (with the h dropped orthographically too)

But, I know that Romanian does in fact have an /h/, and is the only Romance language that does (although French did have one up until the 1700s). Where did this H come from?

From /x/ or /h/ in Slavic loanwords.

At the risk of being told to RTFM: is there a website or something with all of these lists of changes?

geoff wrote:At the risk of being told to RTFM: is there a website or something with all of these lists of changes?

Have you even read my posts? In just about every one I've said I can give you them all in IPA format...


http://www.xapia.com/serakus/zbb/soundchanges.doc

(Note: I haven't added the Ran's Chinese sound changes yet (since I can't write to my conworld CD on a different computer -_-), nor the PIE > Germanic sound changes that someone posted (because I found some more that might have to added), or the Welsh (because those were just posted). I'll get to those, though...

Request:

Sound changes from Proto-Germanic to German.

Maknas wrote:

geoff wrote:At the risk of being told to RTFM: is there a website or something with all of these lists of changes?

Have you even read my posts? In just about every one I've said I can give you them all in IPA format...


http://www.xapia.com/serakus/zbb/soundchanges.doc

(Note: I haven't added the Ran's Chinese sound changes yet (since I can't write to my conworld CD on a different computer -_-), nor the PIE > Germanic sound changes that someone posted (because I found some more that might have to added), or the Welsh (because those were just posted). I'll get to those, though...

Wrong link. After checking the zbb directory at your, I found the correct link at http://www.xapia.com/serakus/zbb/soundchanges.DOC. Thanks though! Does anyone have a link or know where I can find out how exactly to read these sound changes? I'm guessing "β > b / V_V" means β becomes b when inbetween vowels, but something like "bh > b / #_" is beyond me. Any help?

phasmo42 wrote:Does anyone have a link or know where I can find out how exactly to read these sound changes? I'm guessing "? > b / V_V" means ? becomes b when inbetween vowels, but something like "bh > b / #_" is beyond me. Any help?

You're right about the first one. The format is BEFORE > AFTER / ENVIRONMENT; _ represents the BEFORE argument, and it's generally assumed that C = consonant and V = vowel. # is a word boundary, so if the environment is #_, that means the change occurs at the beginning of a word. There was a thread that explained it more in detail, but I can't find it.

Don't forget $ for syllable boundaries, and ? for "nothing" ( "b > ?" means "b is deleted"). (Be careful about capitalization for that character so that it doesn't get confused with the IPA for rounded [e].)

[+voice], [-velar], etc. are examples of feature notation, which, though I can't explain it, should be reasonably intuitive if you already understand phonology.

Erm...I hate to be a nag...but nobody's posted the Latin > Italian changes yet.

Also...(lol yes, more requests), what are the changes from proto-Germanic to Eastern and Northern Germanic?

boomajoom wrote:Erm...I hate to be a nag...but nobody's posted the Latin > Italian changes yet.

That's because they're pretty boring and uneventful in comparison.

boomajoom wrote:Erm...I hate to be a nag...but nobody's posted the Latin > Italian changes yet.

Also...(lol yes, more requests), what are the changes from proto-Germanic to Eastern and Northern Germanic?

Phar's supposed to be doing those, after he finishes Occitan. He told me a week ago or so that he was done with those, just checking the order, but I'd expect him to be done by now...



(Oh, and BTW, I'm working on PIE > Tocharian A and PIE > Tocharian B right now... Dammit, it figures I'd find a book specifically on them, as it lists every single tiny little change... Gah! )

Using the wordlists Jeff has provided me with, I've been able to sort of figure out some Proto-Algonquian > Ojibwe sound changes. But there are lots of complex things that I haven't been able to figure out yet. So expect my list of the changes I've been able to find sometime near the end of the week.

As for Latin > Italian, I'd say there was plenty of change. Not as much as, say, Latin to French or Romanian, but a respectable amount.

Maknas, can you convert that file to a pdf, because:
1. it's ten times friendlier than Word could ever be
2. Word doesn't support Unicode on a mac (which is funny because the rest of the system does )

finlay wrote:Maknas, can you convert that file to a pdf, because:
1. it's ten times friendlier than Word could ever be
2. Word doesn't support Unicode on a mac (which is funny because the rest of the system does )

Tell me how and I'll do it...

I don't really know how, but on mac os x it's an option in the print dialog; you might be able to get things that do this on windows.

I hate to revive this thread just to ask a question, but:

Does anyone know any easily accessible sources that would provide a summary of the (hypothetical) phonology and phonological constraints of any of the proto-languages mentioned above (that is, a chart of the consonant and vowel phonemes believed to exist, permissible consonant and vowel clusters, and the like), so that the sound changes listed can be put into context?

More specifically, I am interested in the phonological profiles reconstructed for Proto-Slavic and Proto-Celtic, largely because I may be interested in recapitulating some features of the evolution of these families for some of my conlangs. I have already found examples of PIE phonology supplied by gsandi and others, but not of these later branches. I am indeed interested in the sound (and other) changes involved, but at the moment, my main interest is in the "starting points" used, so to speak--if that makes sense.

(In addition, I may be similarly interested in the history of certain other broad language families and individual languages, but I thought that I would start with those most likely to be easily available, at least online--I value print sources, but they tend to require more time and money to obtain.)

Any help or advice would be gratefully appreciated; thanks in advance!

p@,
Glenn