Sound Change Quickie Thread

[Haplogy]

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.

[Basilius]

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.

[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)

[Nortaneous]

Yes. Or you could shift them to z ɣ, or dz b, or...

[Basilius]

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.

[Click]

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!

[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?

[WeepingElf]

"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.

[Pole, the]

Hasn't it, or something alike, happened in Greek?

[Herr Dunkel]

Almost. I believe it was "Cʲ > Ct" but I specifically wanted to check this route.

[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

[sangi39]

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.

[Burke]

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

[sangi39]

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/.

[Aili Meilani]

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

Also, hi.

[Pole, the]

Also, hi.

Hi, Fanael.

[Burke]

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

[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]

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.

[Click]

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:

θ > t f x ð h
ð > l r j w 0

[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 ...

[WeepingElf]

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.

[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 ...

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.

[Tropylium]

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.

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.

[Linguist Wannabe]

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?