Sound Change Quickie Thread

Substantial postings about constructed languages and constructed worlds in general. Good place to mention your own or evaluate someone else's. Put quick questions in C&C Quickies instead.
User avatar
Haplogy
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 325
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:14 am
Location: Dutchland

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Haplogy »

WeepingElf wrote:Is an unconditioned shift /x/ > /ʃ/ attested in any natlang? Or are there reasons why it shouldn't occur?
I'm pretty sure that at least one dialect of German has this, although I'm not sure which one. Somewhere near Berlin, IIRC.
Knowledge is power, and power corrupts. So study hard and be evil!

User avatar
Basilius
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 398
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:43 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Basilius »

WeepingElf wrote:Is an unconditioned shift /x/ > /ʃ/ attested in any natlang? Or are there reasons why it shouldn't occur?
You mean, via [ç]?

I think some Berber languages did that.

Although what I read on them sucked at phonetic detail, and I don't even know why the direction of change wasn't the other way round.

More importantly, all the languages in questions have (or used to have) a uvular /χ/, so [x] -> [ç] could be motivated by enhancing the contrast. I believe with such "uvular support" this change is perfectly plausible.

Also, I wonder why /ç/ became the less marked allophone of the ch-sound in German (while it was allophonic). There must exist some literature on this.
Basilius

User avatar
Click
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 620
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:53 am

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Click »

I'm trying to get rid of semivowels.

Are the sound changes below plausible?
  • j w → ð̞ ɣʷ (ɲ ʧ ʃ also depalatalise)
    ð̞ ɣʷ → ð ɣ (ŋʷ kʷ xʷ also delabialise)
    ð ɣ→ θ x (there are no other voiceless obstruents)

User avatar
Nortaneous
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 4544
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
Location: the Imperial Corridor

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Nortaneous »

Yes. Or you could shift them to z ɣ, or dz b, or...
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.

User avatar
Basilius
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 398
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:43 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Basilius »

Poplar wrote:I'm trying to get rid of semivowels.

Are the sound changes below plausible?
  • j w → ð̞ ɣʷ (ɲ ʧ ʃ also depalatalise)
    ð̞ ɣʷ → ð ɣ (ŋʷ kʷ xʷ also delabialise)
    ð ɣ→ θ x (there are no other voiceless obstruents)
Did you mean "no other voiced obstruents"? (In fact, "no other voiced fricatives" would suffice.)

Very natural sound changes, yes.
Basilius

User avatar
Click
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 620
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:53 am

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Click »

Basilius wrote:
Poplar wrote:Are the sound changes below plausible?
  • j w → ð̞ ɣʷ (ɲ ʧ ʃ also depalatalise)
    ð̞ ɣʷ → ð ɣ (ŋʷ kʷ xʷ also delabialise)
    ð ɣ→ θ x (there are no other voiceless obstruents)
Did you mean "no other voiced obstruents"? (In fact, "no other voiced fricatives" would suffice.)

Very natural sound changes, yes.
Yes. Thank you! :)

User avatar
Herr Dunkel
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1088
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: In this multiverse or another

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Herr Dunkel »

"Cʲ > Cs", assuming C is not a voiced obstruent or a sibilant.
Is this good? I mean, Russian has friction on its palatal consonants, so "pʲ > pʲɕ > pɕ > ps" good enough?
sano wrote:
To my dearest Darkgamma,
http://www.dazzlejunction.com/greetings/thanks/thank-you-bear.gif
Sincerely,
sano

User avatar
WeepingElf
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1630
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by WeepingElf »

Naelector Dark wrote:"Cʲ > Cs", assuming C is not a voiced obstruent or a sibilant.
Is this good? I mean, Russian has friction on its palatal consonants, so "pʲ > pʲɕ > pɕ > ps" good enough?
Looks fine to me.
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A

User avatar
Pole, the
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1606
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:50 am

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Pole, the »

Hasn't it, or something alike, happened in Greek?
The conlanger formerly known as “the conlanger formerly known as Pole, the”.

If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.

User avatar
Herr Dunkel
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1088
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: In this multiverse or another

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Herr Dunkel »

Almost. I believe it was "Cʲ > Ct" but I specifically wanted to check this route.
sano wrote:
To my dearest Darkgamma,
http://www.dazzlejunction.com/greetings/thanks/thank-you-bear.gif
Sincerely,
sano

User avatar
Burke
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 184
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:55 am
Location: Red Sox

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Burke »

That I think was Ancient Greek. However, I can assure you that in Modern Greek, words like μονοπάτια are at the point of tça for the last syllable. I wouldn't be surprised if Crete and Kypros has pushed this ahead to tɕa (Cretan) at least if not tʃa(Kypriot) some times. Granted, I'm not to sure about Kypros because I don't speak Kypriot Greek, and I don't run into them all that often. This might have been stopped to a degree because I know that kappa before i or e has become similar to English ch and dj (as in django). Example: I would say και and pronounce this as [ce] while I think Kypriot uses τζι (coming from the same source) and pronounces it as [dʒi] unless a vowel follows and then it just ellides.

Point being, it seems very natural for me. I do it.

------

I wanted to ask a rather generic question. I understand that Creaky voice can evolve from ejective consonants, but are there other things that can come from ejective consonants. Straight plosives in particular.

Thanks
Formerly a vegetable

User avatar
sangi39
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 402
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 3:34 am
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by sangi39 »

Garlic wrote: I wanted to ask a rather generic question. I understand that Creaky voice can evolve from ejective consonants, but are there other things that can come from ejective consonants. Straight plosives in particular.

Thanks
On page 68 of The Nostratic Macrofamily: A Study in Distant Linguistic Relationship by Allan R. Bomhard, John C. Kerns, which can be found here, ejectives are shown shifting to:

a) voiceless plosives, through deglottalisation
b) implosives, through "voicing"
c) voiced plosives, through deglottalisation of intermediate implosives
d) pharyngealised plosives
e) creaky voice

Occurring in various Afroasiatic languages. IIRC though, the exact phonetics of PAA emphatics are uncertain, believed to be either ejectives or glottalised/pharyngealised plosives so that might make the above changes a tad uncertain.
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.

User avatar
Burke
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 184
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:55 am
Location: Red Sox

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Burke »

Thanks. and a curveball for now. Which of those changes is your favorite? I might use it.
Formerly a vegetable

User avatar
sangi39
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 402
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 3:34 am
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by sangi39 »

Garlic wrote:Thanks. and a curveball for now. Which of those changes is your favorite? I might use it.
I suppose my favourite is a shift to implosives, through "voicing". The same source suggests that the Somali voiced retroflex plosive from an alveolar ejective through *t’ > *ɗ > *ᶑ > *ɖ. If that's the downward movement of the glottis pulling the tongue backwards, causing *ɗ to be realised as *ᶑ before deglottalising to *ɖ then I suppose something like *k’ > *ɠ > *ʛ > *ɢ wouldn't be wholly out of the question*. Since /ɢ/ amongst the world's languages is particularly rare and both /ɖ/ and /ɢ/ would be fairly unique sounds within this particular language (having no other sounds at those POAs), I would expect further changes to occur, perhaps differing from one dialect to the next.

*Since *p' would be unaffected by tongue retraction I'd expect the final outcome to be simple /b/.
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.

Aili Meilani
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 3:21 pm

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Aili Meilani »

Is /l/ > /d/ | V_V possible?

Also, hi.

User avatar
Pole, the
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1606
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:50 am

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Pole, the »

Kaksikymmentä wrote:Also, hi.
Hi, Fanael.
The conlanger formerly known as “the conlanger formerly known as Pole, the”.

If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.

User avatar
Burke
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 184
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:55 am
Location: Red Sox

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Burke »

Kaksikymmentä wrote:Is /l/ > /d/ | V_V possible?

Also, hi.

Typically this goes the other way.

/l/ > /n/ | V_V is probably more plausible. Maybe you could get to /d/ from the /n/ by some means. But not one step
Formerly a vegetable

Aili Meilani
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 3:21 pm

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Aili Meilani »

Thanks.

Another question: how can I get rid of /T/ and /D/, except the obvious changes to /t d/ and /s z/?

Pazmivaniye
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 198
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 5:51 pm
Location: Marye Ketu, Paleta Giradai 10056

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Pazmivaniye »

Kaksikymmentä wrote:Thanks.

Another question: how can I get rid of /T/ and /D/, except the obvious changes to /t d/ and /s z/?
You might try lateralizing them to /ɬ ɮ/, or labializing to /f v/, or leniting to /h r/ or something.

User avatar
Click
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 620
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:53 am

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Click »

Kaksikymmentä wrote:Thanks.

Another question: how can I get rid of /T/ and /D/, except the obvious changes to /t d/ and /s z/?
This could help:
Nortaneous wrote:θ > t f x ð h
ð > l r j w 0

Linguist Wannabe
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 91
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:26 pm

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Linguist Wannabe »

I'm fleshing out the diachronics of Proto-Antarctican, and have some questions about voiceless nasals and pre-stopped nasals.

First of all, how plausible is it for one to change into the other e.g a voiceless nasal /n̥/ changing into /tn/, or vice versa? Is there one direction of change that it easier than the other?

Secondly, is it plausible that either of these sounds could evolve from clusters of fricative + nasal e.g. /sn/ -> /n̥/, /sm/ -> /m̥/, or /sn/ -> /tn/, /sm/ -> /pm/ (possible via /fm/)?

Looking for people's thoughts on this ... :)

User avatar
WeepingElf
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1630
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by WeepingElf »

Linguist Wannabe wrote:I'm fleshing out the diachronics of Proto-Antarctican, and have some questions about voiceless nasals and pre-stopped nasals.

First of all, how plausible is it for one to change into the other e.g a voiceless nasal /n̥/ changing into /tn/, or vice versa? Is there one direction of change that it easier than the other?

Secondly, is it plausible that either of these sounds could evolve from clusters of fricative + nasal e.g. /sn/ -> /n̥/, /sm/ -> /m̥/, or /sn/ -> /tn/, /sm/ -> /pm/ (possible via /fm/)?

Looking for people's thoughts on this ... :)
I think changes like /sn/ > /n̥/ make sense. And an unpacking change of the type /n̥/ > /tn/ may also work.
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A

Linguist Wannabe
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 91
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:26 pm

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Linguist Wannabe »

WeepingElf wrote:
Linguist Wannabe wrote:I'm fleshing out the diachronics of Proto-Antarctican, and have some questions about voiceless nasals and pre-stopped nasals.

First of all, how plausible is it for one to change into the other e.g a voiceless nasal /n̥/ changing into /tn/, or vice versa? Is there one direction of change that it easier than the other?

Secondly, is it plausible that either of these sounds could evolve from clusters of fricative + nasal e.g. /sn/ -> /n̥/, /sm/ -> /m̥/, or /sn/ -> /tn/, /sm/ -> /pm/ (possible via /fm/)?

Looking for people's thoughts on this ... :)
I think changes like /sn/ > /n̥/ make sense. And an unpacking change of the type /n̥/ > /tn/ may also work.
Cool thanks for the second opinion. What about a reverse of the unpacking change e.g. [tn] -> [n̥]. I'm thinking of having the two sounds in free variation.

User avatar
Tropylium
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 512
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 1:13 pm
Location: Halfway to Hyperborea

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Tropylium »

Elector Dark wrote:Almost. I believe it was "Cʲ > Ct" but I specifically wanted to check this route.
pj → pʃ is attested in some Bantu languages such as Sotho.
Linguist Wannabe wrote:What about a reverse of the unpacking change e.g. [tn] -> [n̥]. I'm thinking of having the two sounds in free variation.
I'd expect a /hn/ intermediate to be probable for both sn → n̥ and tn → n̥, but if you're having n̥ → tn anyway, leaving them in free variation is not a problem.

There are two main types of "free variation" though — "continuous" where you simply can pronounce e.g anything from [e] to [æ] as long as it's front unrounded and not , and "discontinuous" where speakers would probably recognize that e.g [r] and [ʀ] are different sounds but accept both as allophones in any environment anyway. The second type seems more likely here.
[ˌʔaɪsəˈpʰɻ̊ʷoʊpɪɫ ˈʔæɫkəɦɔɫ]

Linguist Wannabe
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 91
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:26 pm

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Linguist Wannabe »

Tropylium wrote:
Linguist Wannabe wrote:What about a reverse of the unpacking change e.g. [tn] -> [n̥]. I'm thinking of having the two sounds in free variation.
I'd expect a /hn/ intermediate to be probable for both sn → n̥ and tn → n̥, but if you're having n̥ → tn anyway, leaving them in free variation is not a problem.

There are two main types of "free variation" though — "continuous" where you simply can pronounce e.g anything from [e] to [æ] as long as it's front unrounded and not , and "discontinuous" where speakers would probably recognize that e.g [r] and [ʀ] are different sounds but accept both as allophones in any environment anyway. The second type seems more likely here.


Thanks for the opinion. But why do you think the free variation would be more likely to be discontinuous?

Post Reply