zompist bboard

a congress of convoluted conworldery
It is currently Fri Oct 20, 2017 4:02 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 191 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 2:57 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:28 pm
Posts: 439
Whimemsz wrote:
For example, in Rennellese, *l became ŋɡ.


l > r > ʁ > ɣ > ŋɡ

The last step arises from replacing the native voiceless v. voiced opposition by the common Papuan alternative of voiceless v. prenasalised.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 3:32 pm 
Osän
Osän
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
Posts: 11515
Location: the Imperial Corridor
Is there evidence for r > ʁ, or is that just conjecture? (Hiw went from r to ɣ through g​ʟ > ​ʟ.)

_________________
R.Rusanov wrote:
immediately grandchild! an yogurt

Śēus yantəŋ arēyāgliŋ drabuhai džōnnu tańćiburāit.
Nairu džōnnufin kųkus wirklēyuhai śiwai thāt.
Khai. Khai. Khai. Khai. Khai. Khai. Khai.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 4:28 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 3:21 pm
Posts: 2417
Location: In this multiverse or another
French?
German?

_________________
sano wrote:
To my dearest Darkgamma,
http://www.dazzlejunction.com/greetings/thanks/thank-you-bear.gif
Sincerely,
sano


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 5:19 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:28 pm
Posts: 439
Nortaneous wrote:
Is there evidence for r > ʁ, or is that just conjecture? (Hiw went from r to ɣ through g​ʟ > ​ʟ.)

Just conjecture.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 5:20 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:55 am
Posts: 2817
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia / Colombie Britannique, Canada
Nortaneous wrote:
Is there evidence for r > ʁ, or is that just conjecture? (Hiw went from r to ɣ through g​ʟ > ​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.

If you want to question it as a conjecture, it'd be good to mention a lot of sound changes known in languages are conjectures, since we don't have any recordings from the 18th century (as far as I know) or earlier, and explicit comments on pronunciations don't always come by easily in ancient texts. Borrowings can't always be trusted since who knows if was filtered through some dialect, etc.

_________________
ZBB Conlang Index


Last edited by Serafín on Mon Jun 04, 2012 2:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 5:30 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 3:21 pm
Posts: 2417
Location: In this multiverse or another
There is real, tangible evidence in English, German dialects, and Icelandic.

Modern Standard German has [ʁ] and English ɡenerally has [ɻ] or [ɹ] while some dialects have [ʁ] - High German dialects/languages, as is Bavarian, have [r] where they exhibit *r, and, due to evidence from Icelandic, which has [r] for /r/, and Swedish, which has some assfuckery for *r and *ʀ (did it preserve the distinction or what?) which I don't understand, we can safely say that Middle German/Old High German (I'm not quite sure) had [r] for /r/, and that Old Norse had a contrast of /r/ = [r] vs. /ʀ/ (whose value is unknown but perceived to be something like [ɻ]), we can say that Proto-Germanic had [r] for /r/ with high certainty.
And now the English dialects, which have /r/ that goes like this [r] > [ɹ] > [ɻ] > [ʀ] > [ʁ] > [ɰ] ( which will likely go > [ɣ]) - note that these aren't changes, but a continuum of realisations as they begin to differ from PGmc.

And then you realise that I am cool embodied.

_________________
sano wrote:
To my dearest Darkgamma,
http://www.dazzlejunction.com/greetings/thanks/thank-you-bear.gif
Sincerely,
sano


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 5:57 pm 
Osän
Osän
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 2:57 pm
Posts: 11186
Location: Lake Tašpa
Wikipedia says that Swedish preserved the r/R distinction until about 1200 AD. I'm not sure whether R simply gradually became r, or if it was more complex. The same Wikipedia article also says that the value of R was a retroflex r like the modern English one, not a uvular ... there's no proof of that, but I think it might be based on the argument that it would be more likely to be syllabic in Old Norse if it was a semivowel rather than a trill or a fricative.

edit: Just noting that Ive searched around and can't seem to find what I read .... it was in the middle of the night in bed on a cellphone, so I wasnt really paying much attention;.

_________________
Image
Sunàqʷa the Sea Lamprey says: PIE stop inventory was just /p b t d k g kʷ gʷ/.


Last edited by Soap on Sun Jun 03, 2012 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 6:01 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 3:21 pm
Posts: 2417
Location: In this multiverse or another
I believe it was very semivocalic, since, after ʀ > r, in old West Norse, various vowels have appeared to ease pronounciation.
So, *ɡastiz > *ɡestiz > *ɡestiʀ > ɡestʀ > *gestr > ɡestur

_________________
sano wrote:
To my dearest Darkgamma,
http://www.dazzlejunction.com/greetings/thanks/thank-you-bear.gif
Sincerely,
sano


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 6:42 pm 
Visanom
Visanom
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2003 4:56 pm
Posts: 6800
Location: Gimaamaa onibaaganing
I don't think anyone's questioning whether it's possible to have /r/ > /ʁ/, the question is more, what's the evidence that that happened in Rennellese? The intermediate steps conjectured for the Armenian dw- > erk- change, for instance, mostly have evidence in other changes which Armenian underwent, or in language-internal processes within Armenian (or through internal reconstruction). Either way, /ɣ/ > /ŋɡ/, even if phonologically-motivated, is still very odd in terms of phonetics. Of course this may have been how it happened, but also some of the examples in this thread have just been, changes that look odd when comparing the modern language to the proto-language or to its congeners, even if all of the individual components of the change in question were common and unremarkable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 7:35 pm 
Osän
Osän
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
Posts: 11515
Location: the Imperial Corridor
My problem with just postulating it is that there's at least one language in that general area that preserves an intermediate step between /r/ and /ɣ/, and it's not that. It's not improbable that there are other languages in that area that preserve intermediate steps between /r/ and some /g/-like thing; what are those intermediate steps, and how close are/were they to Rennellese?

_________________
R.Rusanov wrote:
immediately grandchild! an yogurt

Śēus yantəŋ arēyāgliŋ drabuhai džōnnu tańćiburāit.
Nairu džōnnufin kųkus wirklēyuhai śiwai thāt.
Khai. Khai. Khai. Khai. Khai. Khai. Khai.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:17 am 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:47 pm
Posts: 1741
Location: Leiden, the Netherlands
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)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 12:40 am 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 12:48 am
Posts: 154
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...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 4:05 am 
Osän
Osän
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
Posts: 11515
Location: the Imperial Corridor
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...

There was some ZBB meme that palatals and front rounded vowels can't back.

_________________
R.Rusanov wrote:
immediately grandchild! an yogurt

Śēus yantəŋ arēyāgliŋ drabuhai džōnnu tańćiburāit.
Nairu džōnnufin kųkus wirklēyuhai śiwai thāt.
Khai. Khai. Khai. Khai. Khai. Khai. Khai.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 4:23 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:14 am
Posts: 414
Location: Dutchland
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)


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.

_________________
Knowledge is power, and power corrupts. So study hard and be evil!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 10:02 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 1:55 pm
Posts: 465
Esmelthien wrote:
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)


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.

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?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:24 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:44 pm
Posts: 1413
Location: Moorhead, MN, USA
I was reading up on the diachronics of French on Wiki, and I ran into this:

Quote:
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".


Coda /p/ > /X/ > /i/??? Da Fuq??? Frickin' Gauls...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:30 pm 
Šriftom
Šriftom

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Posts: 7842
Location: Milwaukee, US
TaylorS wrote:
I was reading up on the diachronics of French on Wiki, and I ran into this:

Quote:
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".


Coda /p/ > /X/ > /i/??? Da Fuq??? Frickin' Gauls...

My guess is that there would be some intermediate steps between /χ/ and /i/, such as /χ/ > [ɣ] > [ʝ] > [j] > /i/.

_________________
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 2:04 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 1:13 pm
Posts: 1503
Location: Halfway to Hyperborea
I remember pointing out some years ago on the talk page of a related subject that it's likely to be an archaic transcription for [xs xt], not actual uvular [χs χt] (what kind of evidence could you even have for random uvulars in a 1st millennium West European language??)

The *pt > xt part can have gone via *ft or *kt. (Eg. Western Uralic has precedents for various things along these lines — Finnic has *pt *kt *št > *xt; Mordvinic has *pt *kt > *ft; Northern Sami has *pt > kt).

_________________
[ˌʔaɪsəˈpʰɻ̊ʷoʊpɪɫ ˈʔæɫkəɦɔɫ]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:22 am 
Osän
Osän
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:35 pm
Posts: 15747
Location: Tokyo
Khubith Ikakudabud wrote:
Esmelthien wrote:
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)


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.

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?

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.

Other voiced fricatives (v, z) are also devoiced, I think.

_________________
My review blog (Updating again)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2012 11:07 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 1:55 pm
Posts: 465
finlay wrote:
Khubith Ikakudabud wrote:
Esmelthien wrote:
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)


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.

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?

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.

Other voiced fricatives (v, z) are also devoiced, I think.

Okay, thakns.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2012 6:09 pm 
Visanom
Visanom
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2003 4:56 pm
Posts: 6800
Location: Gimaamaa onibaaganing
How about some neat examples of regular CV metatheses? (The examples are all from: Juliette Blevins & Andrew Garrett (1998) "The Origins of Consonant-Vowel Metathesis", Language 74(3): 508-556. It's an interesting paper and you should read it -- it basically attempts to define two main types of regular CV metathesis, and to show that both types have a natural acoustic/perceptual basis)

In Colville, at least in some cases (unfortunately the authors do not go into much detail on the precise conditions), pharyngeal consonants can move from the root to a stressed suffix: ts’ʕan "tight" vs. ts-ən-ts’ən-ts’ən-mʕás-əm "he keeps his eyes tightly shut"; pʕas "scared" vs. ts-ps-ʕájaʔ "senseless"; qʷ’ʕáj "black" vs. q’əj-lstsʕát.

Bagnères-de-Luchon "French"* shows a regular shift of /r/s from the onset of post-tonic syllables into the onset of stressed syllables: krámbo "room" (< *kámbro, Lat. CAMERA), práwbe "poor" (< *páwbre, Lat. PAUPERUM), trénde "tender" (< *téndre, Lat. TENERUM), etc.; /r/ also seems to sometimes shift from stressed syllable onsets one syllable to the left (the description of this change isn't very clear), as in krúmpa "to buy" (< *kúmpra, Lat. COMPARARE).

*The authors refer to this as a form of French but it seems to actually be some form of Gascon or something. It's not a terribly important distinction in this instance, though.

Ririo has a regular metathesis of most word-final CV sequences to VC: madak "blood" (< *madaak < *madaka), pɛd "house" (< *paed < *pade), vuim "beard" (< *vumi), piur "wild" (< *piru), etc. This happens in a number of other Austronesian languages as well, though in many cases it's phonologically or syntactically restricted (e.g., the verb "look for" in Meto surfaces as -ami in some phonological/syntactic environments, and as -aem in others: ʔasu ʔi ʔin n-ami "this dog, s/he's looking for it" vs. ʔau ʔ-aem kɔ "I'm looking for you". In many cases, these "metatheses" seem to have progressed by means of the partial assimilation of the prefinal (=stressed) vowel to the articulation of the final vowel, with subsequent loss of the final vowel, e.g., there's evidence that Ririo piur came from *piru via the intermediate step of piuru (which is in fact still an optional pronunciation of the word!).

Also neat are some Northern Paman languages, which look very different from most other Pama-Nyungan languages, to the extent that some people weren't sure they were even part of the family until Ken Hale described their phonological histories. Essentially, these languages first lost initial consonants, then underwent varying degrees of metathesis of initial VC sequences (with varying degrees of subsequent resolution of the resulting V+V sequences, generally of the sort iCV > CjV and the like). Some examples from Ngkoth: maj "MoMo" (= mother's mother??) < *ami (< Proto-Paman *kami); nja- "to sit" < *i:na- (< Proto-Paman *nji:na); and lwan "possum" < *ulan (< Proto-Paman *kulan). Here again the intermediate step was probably through partial assimilation of the following vowel to the initial vowel, and then loss of the initial (unstressed) vowel; for instance, in some languages, initial long vowels conditioned this modification of the stressed vowel without being lost, e.g. Yinwum ulwa "father's father" < *u:la (< Proto-Paman *pu:la).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:42 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:32 pm
Posts: 417
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia, originally: Funningur, Faroe Islands
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)

_________________
Ungur nemur, gamal fremur
Da giovani si impara, da adulti si applica


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:10 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:31 pm
Posts: 2480
Location: Lund
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)

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.

_________________
Attention, je pelote !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:36 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 11:15 pm
Posts: 2582
Burmese has /*kʰr/ > /dʑ/ intervocally. The normal reflex would be /tɕʰ/, but all stops are voiced intervocally. It also has /*aɲ/ > /i/ word finally.

_________________
þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:24 am 
Lebom
Lebom
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:30 pm
Posts: 162
Maybe slightly off topic, but,

Portuguese (especially Brazilian) "r" is what gets me befuzzled! :?
Its pronunciation may be anything between: [r ~ ɾ ~ ʁ ~ ʀ ~ ɣ ~ χ ~ x ~ h] or be completely silent. It can even be a faint [ɹ] at some dialects!
Granted, its pronunciation depends on its position in the word, the accent, who says it and (of course) how one feels at the moment.

You'll hear many mellow [ɹ], hasty [ɾ], angry [r/ʀ] or lazy [h/∅] if you go down to Rio de Janeiro, apparently... :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 191 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group