Sound Change Quickie Thread

[Click]

pʼ tʼ tsʼ kʼ → f θ s x

This, not so much. Glottalization is more or less the opposite articulatory gesture to aspiration/spirantization, so I'd think the following would be more likely:
p t ts k → f θ s x
pʼ tʼ tsʼ kʼ → p t ts k

Would this work?

pʼ tʼ tsʼ kʼ → b d dz ɡ
b d dz g → β ð z ɣ
β ð z ɣ → ɸ θ s x

Are these sound changes realistic?
Cja Cje Cji Cjo Cju → Ce Ce Ci Ce Ci
Cˀja Cˀje Cˀji Cˀjo Cˀju → Cja Cje Cji Cjo Cju
{a(ː)w e(ː)w i(ː)w o(ː)j u(ː)j} {a(ː)w o(ː)w u(ː)w} {a(ː)j e(ː)j i(ː)j} → ø(ː)ʏ̯ o(ː)ʊ̯ e(ː)ɪ̯ / [+stress]
{a(ː)w e(ː)w i(ː)w o(ː)j u(ː)j} {a(ː)w o(ː)w u(ː)w} {a(ː)j e(ː)j i(ː)j} → ʏ ʊ ɪ / [-stress]
ø(ː)ʏ ʏ → o(ː)ʊ̯ ʊ
a(ː)f e(ː)f i(ː)f o(ː)f u(ː)f → a(ː)ɸ e(ː)ɸ i(ː)ɸ o(ː)ɸ u(ː)ɸ
a(ː)ɸ e(ː)ɸ i(ː)ɸ o(ː)ɸ u(ː)ɸ → a(ː)ʊ̯ e(ː)ʊ̯ i(ː)ʊ̯ o(ː)ʊ̯ u(ː)ʊ̯
u(ː)ʊ̯ → uː
C₁V[-stress]C₂ → C₂C₁ / V_V
v ʒ {ð ɣ x} → ʋ j Ø
ʔ → ŋ
ŋ → m /_V[+round]
ŋ → j /_V[+front]*
ŋ → n

*No front rounded vowels.

[Burke]

Quick question.

The conlang I'm on right now has no distinction of voicing. However, in certain situations, some of the consonants voice intervocalically. I had recently also added, with mixed emotions, the voiceless lateral fricative. I was thinking I might have that allophonically voice to the typical lateral approximant in these environments, but that felt a bit weird since the only other consonant to change its place of articulation is my glottal fricative, which can become the velar fricative if a back or low vowel follows it in a manner similar to Mandarin. So I wanted to ask, with this info here, which seems more plausible:

ɬ -> l / _[Back or Low vowel]
ɬ -> ɮ / _[Front and high Vowel]
or just
ɬ -> ɮ / _[Vowel]

Would a velarized l make moer sense in number one? Am I at all clear?

[Basilius]

ɬ -> l / _[Back or Low vowel]
ɬ -> ɮ / _[Front and high Vowel]
or just
ɬ -> ɮ / _[Vowel]

The latter is easier, but I can imagine the former happening, too. Especially if there'd already been a phonemic /l/, and the lateral obstruents were originally slightly palatalized (which seems common).

Would a velarized l make moer sense in number one?

Yes, but it can revert to a "light" version quickly, if not supported by velarization contrast in other alveolars or something.

[R.Rusanov]

What's a cool vowel shift I could do with these vowels? All have stressed and unstressed forms.

Code: Select all

i y     u
e ø     o
æ   a   ɒ

[Basilius]

What's a cool vowel shift I could do with these vowels?

For me, "cool" isn't specific enough.

Also, some context. Phonotactics - ancestral, target state? Morphological effects that you'd like to have or rather avoid (umlaut etc.)? Contrasts on consonants prone to interact with vowel qualities - palatalization, labialization? Also, how much homophony would you tolerate (is merging them all in schwa cool)?

[Herr Dunkel]

What's a cool vowel shift I could do with these vowels? All have stressed and unstressed forms.

Code: Select all

i y     u
e ø     o
æ   a   ɒ

Give them long variants before zero or one consonant and short variants elsewhere, then do this to the unstressed variants:
i ɪ
iː i
y ʏ
yː y
e ɛ
eː e
ø ɛ
øː e
æ a
æː ɛ
ɒ ɔ
ɒː ɑ
aː ɑ
oː o
o ɔ
u ʏ
uː u
Note: those resulting from the shift to the right don't count as members of the left for any ambiguity that might arise (such as original unstressed /o/ and the /o/ coming from prior /oː/); assume that these changes are near-simoultaneous or something.
Then move stress to the first syllable.
Voila! You now have a vaguely Icelandish/Faroish system with random length and quality and stuff. You'll also have more distinct short vowels than long, which is also quite Icelandish. What isn't Icelandish is that you'll have every single vowel possible everywhere (where the earlier stress rules allowed).
For bonus points, simplify clusters and get rid of any potential gemination distinction

[R.Rusanov]

Also, some context. Phonotactics - ancestral, target state? Morphological effects that you'd like to have or rather avoid (umlaut etc.)? Contrasts on consonants prone to interact with vowel qualities - palatalization, labialization? Also, how much homophony would you tolerate (is merging them all in schwa cool)?

It's a medieval romance language. Here's a sample verb declination:
jéb ámbol
tú ǽmbølæ
él/éla ámbola
nó ambolám
vó æmbølǽt
éʎ/élæ ámbolan

Regular nouns conjugate like:
ápa ǽpæ (fem.)
dvón dvǿɲ (masc.)

As you can see umlaut has already taken place. The language went through two rounds of palatalization and one of labialization already, no such effects are in play now. I'd rather not have a lot of schwas given that unstressed <a> is already /ə/.

[Click]

Are these SCs plausible?

ˀm ˀn ˀŋ → b d ɡ
m ŋ → mʲ ŋʲ → j / _{i e}
ŋ → ŋʷ → m / _{u o}
{m ŋ} → n

[Pole, the]

How about such a vowel shift?

ɨ ĭ ŭ > ə
ə a > a ɒ
ɒ o u > o ɵ ʉ
ɵ ʉ > ə ɨ > ɪ ɘ > i ə

[Cedh]

Are these SCs plausible?

ˀm ˀn ˀŋ → b d ɡ
m ŋ → mʲ ŋʲ → j / _{i e}
ŋ → ŋʷ → m / _{u o}
{m ŋ} → n

Yes. (The least likely one of these changes is unconditional m → n, but even that is fairly plausible.)

How about such a vowel shift?

ɨ ĭ ŭ > ə
ə a > a ɒ
ɒ o u > o ɵ ʉ
ɵ ʉ > ə ɨ > ɪ ɘ > i ə

Which of these changes feed into each other, and which ones don't? What's the original vowel system like? Are there any vowels that don't change at all?

(Looking at all the lines separately, the first three of these should be fine. The last line is a bit weird, but I suppose it could work. I'd suggest replacing [ɘ] with [ɯ̞] in the third phase though.)

[Pole, the]

Each of them feeds to the next one.
That + /i e/, which don't change.

In one line, one could write:
ɨ ĭ ŭ a o u > a a a o i ə

[Cael]

Is it possible for palatalization to arise in consonant clusters with /ʔ/? (/kʔɔp/ > [kʔʲɔp]). If so, is it possible that palatalization could become phonemic if /ʔ/ is lost from the phoneme inventory? [kʔʲɔp] > [kʲɔp])?

[R.Rusanov]

It's possible - almost any stop can become /j/ - but I'd think the opposite would be more likely:

k > kʲ
kʔ > k

Consonants that are seen as 'stronger' in tend to resist change, then fall back into the newly vacant niche left by the change of the previous 'weak' variant.

For example, Turkish and Early Indo-European /k/ became /kʲ/ in satem languages, with its role filled by /q/ or /q/ and /qʷ/ respectively.

[Cael]

It's possible - almost any stop can become /j/ - but I'd think the opposite would be more likely:

k > kʲ
kʔ > k

Consonants that are seen as 'stronger' in tend to resist change, then fall back into the newly vacant niche left by the change of the previous 'weak' variant.

For example, Turkish and Early Indo-European /k/ became /kʲ/ in satem languages, with its role filled by /q/ or /q/ and /qʷ/ respectively.

I'm afraid I'm having a hard time understanding. Since ʔ is the main force that introduces palatalization how would k > kʲ arise?

[R.Rusanov]

The velar consonants are articulated on the velum, while uvular, pharyngeal, glottal etc. stops have their main constriction point found increasingly further back. It's relatively common for languages that have consonants articulated behind than the velum to front the velar consonants towards the palate and shift the uvulars, glottals, etc. frontwards.

Here is a picture for reference:
http://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com ... titled.png

[Cael]

The velar consonants are articulated on the velum, while uvular, pharyngeal, glottal etc. stops have their main constriction point found increasingly further back. It's relatively common for languages that have consonants articulated behind than the velum to front the velar consonants towards the palate and shift the uvulars, glottals, etc. frontwards.

Here is a picture for reference:
http://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com ... titled.png

OH. Ok! Thank you very much. That clears things right up. I appreciate your advice!

[Aili Meilani]

What's a plausible way to get murmur or creaky voice into a language?

[Nortaneous]

What's a plausible way to get murmur or creaky voice into a language?

What's murmur? Breathy voice?

Syllable-final /? h/ can turn to creaky or breathy voice on the preceding vowel, and if you need to get syllable-final /? h/ you can just get them from syllable-final stops and fricatives -- either all of them or just one each. Creaky voice in Danish developed from some weird pitch accent shit so there's that too.

[sangi39]

What's a plausible way to get murmur or creaky voice into a language?

Creaky voiced plosives can apparently also come from ejectives*. If you don't already have ejectives, I think we've discussed in the ZBB, possibly even in this thread, the possibility of ejectives developing from geminate plosives. So you could have, say, [t:] > [tʔ]~[ʔt] > [t'] > [d̰], [k:] > [kʔ]~[ʔk] > [k'] > [g̰], etc. apparently.

*The Nostratic macrofamily: a study in distant linguistic relationship by Allan R. Bomhard, John C. Kerns, pg. 68, referring to Kabardian

[sangi39]

Just a quick one:

Are geminate consonants more likely to develop directly as gemination of an onset directly after a stressed syllable or as gemination of the onset of the stressed syllable itself, e.g.

[a'ta.ka] > [a'tak.ka] or
[a'ta.ka] > [at'ta.ka]

... or is either option as likely to occur as the other?

Thanks

[finlay]

Stress isn't rigidly defined cross-linguistically, so you can get away with either tbh.

[gach]

Trying different types of stress out suggests to me that at least with stronger dynamic stress you would expect the stressed syllable to gain even more weight. In other words adding a coda to the stressed syllable by geminating the following onset feels natural to me. But really what you want to do is to try what sounds most natural to your own ears when using the actual stress type your language uses.

[Chagen]

I'm planning out a con-family for PIE right now and I wanna know if these changes are feasible together:

H means "any laryngeal"

H either /x/ or /ʀ/

tH pH kH tʰ pʰ kʰ

I'm pretty the second happened in Sanskrit but just making sure.

[WeepingElf]

I'm planning out a con-family for PIE right now and I wanna know if these changes are feasible together:

H means "any laryngeal"

H either /x/ or /ʀ/

tH pH kH tʰ pʰ kʰ

I'm pretty the second happened in Sanskrit but just making sure.

Yes. The latter did happen in Sanskrit. And the former makes sense, too. I see no problem with having both in the same language.

[Chagen]

Thanks! I wanted to make an IE family that kept the laryngeals instead of dropping them entirely.