Re: Bizarre Sound Changes
Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 9:02 pm
Greek apparently went from [y] to [f]~[v] in certain contexts. Fortition like this and that of [j w] above weirds me.
Huh, I thought it was more widespread than that. I knew an Argentinean who had debuccalization of coda /s/.Serafín wrote:The colloquial Spanish of Caribbeans and some southern Spaniards, please don't generalize this to the rest of us.Jetboy wrote:Also, if anyone feels like cutting out steps, Latin -> colloquial Spanish has /s/ -> /e/ #_C.
Apparently Old Norse had "u-umlaut," which, near as I can tell, was basically rounding of front vowels when followed by back vowels. To quote Wikipedia:Soap wrote:Does anyone know if front rounded vowels have ever arisen from front unrounded vowels? e.g. i > y, rather than u > y.
Wikipedia wrote:Some /y/, /yː/, /ø/, /øː/, and all /ɔ/, /ɔː/ were obtained by u-umlaut from /i/, /iː/, /e/, /eː/, and /a/, /aː/ respectively. See Old Icelandic for information on /ɔː/.
Debuccalization, s > h, isn't the same as dropping the historical /s/ altogether. Debuccalization is very widespread in both Latin America and Spain, but dropping is specific to that area I mentioned.Jetboy wrote:Huh, I thought it was more widespread than that. I knew an Argentinean who had debuccalization of coda /s/.Serafín wrote:The colloquial Spanish of Caribbeans and some southern Spaniards, please don't generalize this to the rest of us.Jetboy wrote:Also, if anyone feels like cutting out steps, Latin -> colloquial Spanish has /s/ -> /e/ #_C.
you get words in english which have gained or lost initial n because, for instance, an orange and a norange sound the same. I'm sure you will have known that, though. (Incidentally, Japanese people don't tend to "get" the concept of liaison, and it can be a chore to get them to pronounce words like this as [ənɒrəndʒ] instead of [əɴʔɒrəndʒ] (that's leaving aside the fact that they usually pronounce this word [ɔɾɛndʒi]). But i've heard at least one speaker who'd internalised "hours" as "nours" because he always hears phrases like "an hour" or "half an hour" and reasoned that it must be "a nour", and later ended up pronouncing "2 hours" as "2 nours"...)AnTeallach wrote:Scottish Gaelic has a habit of putting /f/ on the beginning of words which start with a vowel, because initial zero can be interpreted as grammatical lenition of /f/. You also get things like /h/ becoming /t/ for similar reasons.
יתר. The qal pf. form itself is not used, perhaps, though the participle is. (yother I suppose).Mr. Z wrote:sirdanilot: I don't think I've heard the word /ja:Tar/... Care for Hebrew transcription? I think I know the root (because your other word of the same root is familiar), but that particular form must have disappeared from the modern language...
In my very own dialect of Dutch (Zeelandic): *vi:f -> /vy:f/, *bli:f -> /bly:f/, *bəˈxriːp -> /bəˈhryːp/. This occurs only before /p/ and /f/, and the change is no longer productive, for example never in names (except if they have been living in the same village since forever, for example someone named *ˈ piːpəlɪŋk could become ˈ pyːpəlɪŋk though it would be idiolectal at best).Does anyone know if front rounded vowels have ever arisen from front unrounded vowels?
Please don't be ridiculous. I posted 'american IPA notation' to denote that /y/ would obviously be /j/ (everyone knows americanist IPA does that). As you may notice, I did not do so in my post above, meaning I do mean /y/ there. If I diverge from standard IPA at any time, I will note it, and so should everyone else for themselves.Skomakar'n wrote:It wasn't entirely obvious. It's still stupid not to use IPA like everyone else in a forum like this. At least other messages in this thread related to y > u or u > y started becoming confusing after that message, because I wasn't sure whether anyone actually meant y anymore.Whimemsz wrote:Jesus, guys, it's obvious he meant "Americanist Phonetic Notation," in which <y> is /j/, why is this such a big deal?
You fucking brits and your ɒfinlay wrote:you get words in english which have gained or lost initial n because, for instance, an orange and a norange sound the same. I'm sure you will have known that, though. (Incidentally, Japanese people don't tend to "get" the concept of liaison, and it can be a chore to get them to pronounce words like this as [ənɒrəndʒ] instead of [əɴʔɒrəndʒ] (that's leaving aside the fact that they usually pronounce this word [ɔɾɛndʒi]). But i've heard at least one speaker who'd internalised "hours" as "nours" because he always hears phrases like "an hour" or "half an hour" and reasoned that it must be "a nour", and later ended up pronouncing "2 hours" as "2 nours"...)AnTeallach wrote:Scottish Gaelic has a habit of putting /f/ on the beginning of words which start with a vowel, because initial zero can be interpreted as grammatical lenition of /f/. You also get things like /h/ becoming /t/ for similar reasons.
americanist PA is the preferred term.sirdanilot wrote:Please don't be ridiculous. I posted 'american IPA notation' to denote that /y/ would obviously be /j/ (everyone knows americanist IPA does that). As you may notice, I did not do so in my post above, meaning I do mean /y/ there. If I diverge from standard IPA at any time, I will note it, and so should everyone else for themselves.Skomakar'n wrote:It wasn't entirely obvious. It's still stupid not to use IPA like everyone else in a forum like this. At least other messages in this thread related to y > u or u > y started becoming confusing after that message, because I wasn't sure whether anyone actually meant y anymore.Whimemsz wrote:Jesus, guys, it's obvious he meant "Americanist Phonetic Notation," in which <y> is /j/, why is this such a big deal?
lo and behold you also appended I before PA, making it confusing and wrong! (Think about it - American International ... should give you a clue there's something wrong!)sirdanilot wrote:lo and behold I dropped the 'ist' off of Americanist, making my speech utterly incomprehensible
In his defence a lot of Americans probably think of international as a synonym for national (cf. "World Series" etc)Miekko wrote:lo and behold you also appended I before PA, making it confusing and wrong! (Think about it - American International ... should give you a clue there's something wrong!)sirdanilot wrote:lo and behold I dropped the 'ist' off of Americanist, making my speech utterly incomprehensible
What?? That's insane!Tropylium wrote:Moreover, the merger of lengthened *t and non-lengthened *tt was not entirely complete; a few dialects of Ume Sami have a four-way length distinction:
*tttt < *tt / _V.
*ttt < *tt / _VC.
*tt < *t / _V.
*t < *t / _VC.
Yeah, I am almost not sure I believe it.Qwynegold wrote:What?? That's insane!
NYC English bird > boid!Travis B. wrote:Then there's English dialects which made the change of Middle English [iː] > present-day [aː] - skipping a couple steps there, of course.linguoboy wrote:Mandarin Chinese has [ai] > [iə], which is kind of wack.
I didn't see that, unless you mean after the message. If not, sorry.sirdanilot wrote:Please don't be ridiculous. I posted 'american IPA notation' to denote that /y/ would obviously be /j/ (everyone knows americanist IPA does that). As you may notice, I did not do so in my post above, meaning I do mean /y/ there. If I diverge from standard IPA at any time, I will note it, and so should everyone else for themselves.Skomakar'n wrote:It wasn't entirely obvious. It's still stupid not to use IPA like everyone else in a forum like this. At least other messages in this thread related to y > u or u > y started becoming confusing after that message, because I wasn't sure whether anyone actually meant y anymore.Whimemsz wrote:Jesus, guys, it's obvious he meant "Americanist Phonetic Notation," in which <y> is /j/, why is this such a big deal?
That's probably just loss of secondary stress; only /@ @` i/ are allowed in unstressed word-final position. (see also: 'tater', my grandfather's pronunciation of 'ohio' as ending in [@])Theta wrote:I'm not sure if this applies for any other words, but for my grandmother and a few other older speakers around here, the word <borrow> has a pretty drastic vowel shift at the end of the word, that is, /ou/ > /i/, so the word is pronounced approximately [bɑɹi].
Too bad it's practically extinct these days. Also a historical feature of Yat dialect in New Orleans, where it is similarly in retreat.TaylorS wrote:NYC English bird > boid!Travis B. wrote:Then there's English dialects which made the change of Middle English [iː] > present-day [aː] - skipping a couple steps there, of course.linguoboy wrote:Mandarin Chinese has [ai] > [iə], which is kind of wack.
Not to mention the fact that "borrow" is followed by "your" most of the time. In a phrase like "Can I borrow your spade?" It would be hard to say what that vowel was, or if it had any phonemically salient quality of its own.Nortaneous wrote:That's probably just loss of secondary stress; only /@ @` i/ are allowed in unstressed word-final position. (see also: 'tater', my grandfather's pronunciation of 'ohio' as ending in [@])Theta wrote:I'm not sure if this applies for any other words, but for my grandmother and a few other older speakers around here, the word <borrow> has a pretty drastic vowel shift at the end of the word, that is, /ou/ > /i/, so the word is pronounced approximately [bɑɹi].
Isnt it really just /ɜɪ/, though? Ive only heard the full-blown /ɔɪ/ in cartoons and other mock accents.NYC English bird > boid!
... and isn't/wasn't it a merger of NURSE and CHOICE as [ɜɪ] rather than the reversal it's sometimes portrayed as? I think the alleged Utah NORTH/START reversal ("barn in a born") is also actually a merger.Soap wrote:Isnt it really just /ɜɪ/, though? Ive only heard the full-blown /ɔɪ/ in cartoons and other mock accents.NYC English bird > boid!
By some guidelines this would be an example of tertiary stress, with it corresponding to "unstressed" "full" vowels, and contrasting with when these vowels are reduced all the way, e.g. with /oʊ̯/ being reduced to /ə/ or, before a vowel, to /əw/ (or, in some dialects, /ɵ/ instead of /ə/, from what I have read).Soap wrote:Do some people really have secondary stress in words like "borrow", "arrow", "window", etc? I cant help but see that as a claim people made so that they could stick to the ideal of saying that the only unstressed vowels in English are /ə ɚ ɪ i/ (or some similar system). If I heard someone saying "borrow" is if it were a compound of "bor" and "row" I'd assume they didnt know English very well.
That, or the definition of secondary stress that youre using doesnt mean the kind of secondary stress which is generally exemplified by compounds.
Eh? Haven't heard that one, and I'm in the next state north...AnTeallach wrote:I think the alleged Utah NORTH/START reversal ("barn in a born") is also actually a merger.