l > r > ʁ > ɣ > ŋɡWhimemsz wrote:For example, in Rennellese, *l became ŋɡ.
The last step arises from replacing the native voiceless v. voiced opposition by the common Papuan alternative of voiceless v. prenasalised.
l > r > ʁ > ɣ > ŋɡWhimemsz wrote:For example, in Rennellese, *l became ŋɡ.
sano wrote:To my dearest Darkgamma,
http://www.dazzlejunction.com/greetings/thanks/thank-you-bear.gif
Sincerely,
sano
Just conjecture.Nortaneous wrote:Is there evidence for r > ʁ, or is that just conjecture? (Hiw went from r to ɣ through gʟ > ʟ.)
Latin's rhotic is strongly believed to have been [r], so that's evidence the sound change happened somewhere in the development of modern French. It'd be nice to have some comment of 17th century French speakers or whatever complaining of the new [ʁ] or [ʀ] pronunciation though.Nortaneous wrote:Is there evidence for r > ʁ, or is that just conjecture? (Hiw went from r to ɣ through gʟ > ʟ.)
sano wrote:To my dearest Darkgamma,
http://www.dazzlejunction.com/greetings/thanks/thank-you-bear.gif
Sincerely,
sano
sano wrote:To my dearest Darkgamma,
http://www.dazzlejunction.com/greetings/thanks/thank-you-bear.gif
Sincerely,
sano
There was some ZBB meme that palatals and front rounded vowels can't back.8Deer wrote:Forgive my ignorance, but why is the change from /y/ /u/ so bizarre? They are both high rounded vowels, and I know that fronting of vowels is more common but it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch...
I personally always pronounce /r/ as [ʀ], and /x/ as [χ], and I'm Brabantian. Also, Harry Jekkers' /r/ sounds pretty strange to me. I don't like it.sirdanilot wrote:Variations of Dutch /r/. Some of the best known varieties, from most to least common:
1. initial and intervocallically [r], in coda [ɹ]. Most Standard Dutch speaking people have this nowadays.
2. [ʀ] everywhere (sometimes closer to [χ] than to a r-like phone). In Brabantian and some southern Hollandic dialects (Rotterdam, The Hague; the latter seems to turn r into [a] word finallyˌ a bit like in German). A different kind of [ʀ] is used among rich people (some weird sociolinguistic phenomenon)
3. [r] everywhere (Zeelandic, Veluws; Northern Hollandic, Amsterdams, West-Frisian, (which is not a frisian but a hollandic dialect), eastern dialects.
Most non-native Dutch people have this /r/ (often due to their native language).
4. [ʁ] everywhere. (Limburgish).
5. [ɹ] everywhere. Only in the city dialect of Leiden. Even there, it seems to occur mostly among older, poor people, it's a remarkable sociolinguistic phenomenon. I have noticed that they try to oppress it when talking to 'outsiders' (sometimes with little success...)
Number 2 shows that r's can turn into [χ] like sounds, especially in Brabantian Dutch. The actual realisation there is a velar trill of some sort, but it sounds awfully close to [χ]. Their realisation of the normal /χ/ is also differentː it is [x]. I wouldn't be surprised if this were compensatory to preserve the distinction between r and x.
Here is a song for you to enjoy: http://youtu.be/ptGJ8wzeGDE (by "Harrie Jekkâhs", so to speak)
This is a bit tangential, but Wikipedia is always telling me that the dutch <g> is /ɣ/, but I've always heard it (on youtube and such) as /χ/. Which one is used more often?Esmelthien wrote:I personally always pronounce /r/ as [ʀ], and /x/ as [χ], and I'm Brabantian. Also, Harry Jekkers' /r/ sounds pretty strange to me. I don't like it.sirdanilot wrote:Variations of Dutch /r/. Some of the best known varieties, from most to least common:
1. initial and intervocallically [r], in coda [ɹ]. Most Standard Dutch speaking people have this nowadays.
2. [ʀ] everywhere (sometimes closer to [χ] than to a r-like phone). In Brabantian and some southern Hollandic dialects (Rotterdam, The Hague; the latter seems to turn r into [a] word finallyˌ a bit like in German). A different kind of [ʀ] is used among rich people (some weird sociolinguistic phenomenon)
3. [r] everywhere (Zeelandic, Veluws; Northern Hollandic, Amsterdams, West-Frisian, (which is not a frisian but a hollandic dialect), eastern dialects.
Most non-native Dutch people have this /r/ (often due to their native language).
4. [ʁ] everywhere. (Limburgish).
5. [ɹ] everywhere. Only in the city dialect of Leiden. Even there, it seems to occur mostly among older, poor people, it's a remarkable sociolinguistic phenomenon. I have noticed that they try to oppress it when talking to 'outsiders' (sometimes with little success...)
Number 2 shows that r's can turn into [χ] like sounds, especially in Brabantian Dutch. The actual realisation there is a velar trill of some sort, but it sounds awfully close to [χ]. Their realisation of the normal /χ/ is also differentː it is [x]. I wouldn't be surprised if this were compensatory to preserve the distinction between r and x.
Here is a song for you to enjoy: http://youtu.be/ptGJ8wzeGDE (by "Harrie Jekkâhs", so to speak)
Coda /p/ > /X/ > /i/??? Da Fuq??? Frickin' Gauls...Some sound changes are attested. The sound changes /ps/ → /χs/ and /pt/ → /χt/ appears in a pottery inscription from la Graufesenque (1st cent. a.d.) where the word paraxsidi is written for paropsides.[9] Similarly, the development -cs- → /χs/ → /is/ and -ct- → -χt- → /it/, the second common to much of Western Romance, also appears in inscriptions, e.g. Divicta ~ Divixta, Rectugenus ~ Rextugenus ~ Reitugenus, and is present in Welsh, e.g. *sectan → saith "seven", *ectemos → eithaf "extreme".
My guess is that there would be some intermediate steps between /χ/ and /i/, such as /χ/ > [ɣ] > [ʝ] > [j] > /i/.TaylorS wrote:I was reading up on the diachronics of French on Wiki, and I ran into this:
Coda /p/ > /X/ > /i/??? Da Fuq??? Frickin' Gauls...Some sound changes are attested. The sound changes /ps/ → /χs/ and /pt/ → /χt/ appears in a pottery inscription from la Graufesenque (1st cent. a.d.) where the word paraxsidi is written for paropsides.[9] Similarly, the development -cs- → /χs/ → /is/ and -ct- → -χt- → /it/, the second common to much of Western Romance, also appears in inscriptions, e.g. Divicta ~ Divixta, Rectugenus ~ Rextugenus ~ Reitugenus, and is present in Welsh, e.g. *sectan → saith "seven", *ectemos → eithaf "extreme".
if I remember correctly, merging the two is done in Hollandic Dutch (ie, the main dialect). I didn't speak it properly myself, but on cursory listenings I never heard a difference, which would make sense given that I was in South Holland, near Leiden and the Hague.Khubith Ikakudabud wrote:This is a bit tangential, but Wikipedia is always telling me that the dutch <g> is /ɣ/, but I've always heard it (on youtube and such) as /χ/. Which one is used more often?Esmelthien wrote:I personally always pronounce /r/ as [ʀ], and /x/ as [χ], and I'm Brabantian. Also, Harry Jekkers' /r/ sounds pretty strange to me. I don't like it.sirdanilot wrote:Variations of Dutch /r/. Some of the best known varieties, from most to least common:
1. initial and intervocallically [r], in coda [ɹ]. Most Standard Dutch speaking people have this nowadays.
2. [ʀ] everywhere (sometimes closer to [χ] than to a r-like phone). In Brabantian and some southern Hollandic dialects (Rotterdam, The Hague; the latter seems to turn r into [a] word finallyˌ a bit like in German). A different kind of [ʀ] is used among rich people (some weird sociolinguistic phenomenon)
3. [r] everywhere (Zeelandic, Veluws; Northern Hollandic, Amsterdams, West-Frisian, (which is not a frisian but a hollandic dialect), eastern dialects.
Most non-native Dutch people have this /r/ (often due to their native language).
4. [ʁ] everywhere. (Limburgish).
5. [ɹ] everywhere. Only in the city dialect of Leiden. Even there, it seems to occur mostly among older, poor people, it's a remarkable sociolinguistic phenomenon. I have noticed that they try to oppress it when talking to 'outsiders' (sometimes with little success...)
Number 2 shows that r's can turn into [χ] like sounds, especially in Brabantian Dutch. The actual realisation there is a velar trill of some sort, but it sounds awfully close to [χ]. Their realisation of the normal /χ/ is also differentː it is [x]. I wouldn't be surprised if this were compensatory to preserve the distinction between r and x.
Here is a song for you to enjoy: http://youtu.be/ptGJ8wzeGDE (by "Harrie Jekkâhs", so to speak)
Okay, thakns.finlay wrote:if I remember correctly, merging the two is done in Hollandic Dutch (ie, the main dialect). I didn't speak it properly myself, but on cursory listenings I never heard a difference, which would make sense given that I was in South Holland, near Leiden and the Hague.Khubith Ikakudabud wrote:This is a bit tangential, but Wikipedia is always telling me that the dutch <g> is /ɣ/, but I've always heard it (on youtube and such) as /χ/. Which one is used more often?Esmelthien wrote:I personally always pronounce /r/ as [ʀ], and /x/ as [χ], and I'm Brabantian. Also, Harry Jekkers' /r/ sounds pretty strange to me. I don't like it.sirdanilot wrote:Variations of Dutch /r/. Some of the best known varieties, from most to least common:
1. initial and intervocallically [r], in coda [ɹ]. Most Standard Dutch speaking people have this nowadays.
2. [ʀ] everywhere (sometimes closer to [χ] than to a r-like phone). In Brabantian and some southern Hollandic dialects (Rotterdam, The Hague; the latter seems to turn r into [a] word finallyˌ a bit like in German). A different kind of [ʀ] is used among rich people (some weird sociolinguistic phenomenon)
3. [r] everywhere (Zeelandic, Veluws; Northern Hollandic, Amsterdams, West-Frisian, (which is not a frisian but a hollandic dialect), eastern dialects.
Most non-native Dutch people have this /r/ (often due to their native language).
4. [ʁ] everywhere. (Limburgish).
5. [ɹ] everywhere. Only in the city dialect of Leiden. Even there, it seems to occur mostly among older, poor people, it's a remarkable sociolinguistic phenomenon. I have noticed that they try to oppress it when talking to 'outsiders' (sometimes with little success...)
Number 2 shows that r's can turn into [χ] like sounds, especially in Brabantian Dutch. The actual realisation there is a velar trill of some sort, but it sounds awfully close to [χ]. Their realisation of the normal /χ/ is also differentː it is [x]. I wouldn't be surprised if this were compensatory to preserve the distinction between r and x.
Here is a song for you to enjoy: http://youtu.be/ptGJ8wzeGDE (by "Harrie Jekkâhs", so to speak)
Other voiced fricatives (v, z) are also devoiced, I think.
I don't think any of these are exactly bizarre. T > h is pretty straight forward (any voiceless obstruent > h isn't really a surprise), and T > t_h is quite usual fortition. Vowels can end up doing whatever crazy stuff without raising too many eyebrows. kn > n_0 presumably went through hn.johanpeturdam wrote:Don't know if there were mentioned in the earlier thread but:
ON. /θ/ -> Far. /tʰ/ and /h/
Icelandic has: Proto-Norse o (then I-umlaut) -> Old Norse <ø> /ø/ -> Modern Icelandic <æ> /ai̯/ (might not be written down precisely, but you get the picture, I hope).
Also Icelandic: ON /kn/ (knífr) -> Modern Icelandic /n̥/ (hnífur, compare Far. knívur)