Sound Change Quickie Thread

[Pole, the]

How do I assimilate "Harry" in a conlang with the following inventory:

/p b t d ʈ ɖ k g/
/m n ŋ/
/f v s z/
/r l/
/a e i o u

I figured -arry should be /ari/ but I can't quite figure out the /h/ ... /k/ perhaps?

/hari/. Fuck the phonology.

[Thry]

no /h/, but you can also borrow the phoneme as Pole says, since it's common in human interjections. (hah! huh! hey!)

[Herr Dunkel]

/eri/ or /ari/ - the /h/ is dropped in enough sorts of English anyway.

[Herr Dunkel]

Also: are there any natlangs with a three-vowel system and no length distinctions?

Central Atlas Berber

[tezcatlip0ca]

/eri/ or /ari/ - the /h/ is dropped in enough sorts of English anyway.

The language disallows null onsets, and has no approximants. I would choose /ŋari/ or /fari/.

[Herr Dunkel]

/ŋeri/ or /geri/ from me then. /fari/ or /feri/ just seems a bit too-entusiastic.
Russian all the way on it

[Hallow XIII]

rounding harmony

/i u e o ə æ ɑ/

Because I'm never happy I've decided that this is an early stage of my conlang and am now working on the descendant. I've two options: I can either keep the vowel system as is, with the above phonemes and harmonic rounding, or I can break the harmony, leaving me with this:

Code: Select all

i y ɯ u
e ø ɤ o
  ə ɵ
æ ɶ ɑ ɒ

to which I would then apply these changes, of which I would like your opinion:

ɒ ɔ
ɯ ɨ
u ʉ
o u
ɔ o
ɶ ø
ɵ ø

Code: Select all

i y ɨ ʉ u
 e ø ɤ o
    ə
   æ ɑ

[Herr Dunkel]

Assuming /ɶ/ is your rounded /æ/, I would say this looks OK.

[Nortaneous]

...no diphthongs?

[Hallow XIII]

...no diphthongs?

Well, I guess all of the below can be followed by j or w.

Code: Select all

i y ɯ u
e ø ɤ o
  ə ɵ
æ ɶ ɑ ɒ

Err... Lessee...

Goddammit I'll have to make a chart.

[Hallow XIII]

Here's the chart. Have funzies.

Code: Select all

ij  → iː
iw → yː
yj  → wəɪ̯
yw → jəw
ɯj → ɤi̯
ɯw → uː
uj → yː
uw → uː
ej  → eɪ̯
ew  → ɔʏ̯
øj → œʏ̯
øw → jəw
ɤj → ɤɪ̯
ɤw → oː
oj → ɔɪ̯
ow → ɔʊ̯
əj → eɪ̯
əw → əʊ̯
ɵj → ɔʏ̯
ɵw → ɔʊ̯
æj → æɪ̯
æw → œʏ̯
ɶj → æɪ̯
ɶw → œʏ̯
ɑj → aɪ̯
ɑw → ɔː
ɒj → ɔɪ̯
ɒw  → ɔʊ̯

wəɪ̯  → ɔʏ̯
jəw  → ɔʏ̯
əʊ̯ → ɔʏ̯
æɪ̯ → aɪ̯
ɔɪ̯ → aɪ̯
əɪ̯ → eɪ̯
ɤɪ̯ → eɪ̯
ɔʊ̯ → aʊ̯

So yeah. Add /eɪ̯ aɪ̯ aʊ̯ ɔʏ̯ œʏ̯/ to the above inventory.

I'll see about vowel breaking in the meantime.

[LinguistCat]

I'm starting on a project for fun, and got my phonemes from there. I ended up with /m n ɲ ŋ p t t͡ʃ k ʔ s ʃ x h l j w i ɨ u a/, with a syllable structure of (C1)V(C2) where C1 is any consonant and C2 is also any consonant, tho I might restrict the second one later. I'm not taking the suggestions for allophony, as they tend to suck. I'd especially like to do something interesting with the pairs /s/ and /ʃ/, and /x/ and /h/, so that if I make a descendent, I'll already have some sound change fodder.

- I was thinking that /s/ and /ʃ/ could merge when preceding /i ɨ j/, but I don't want them to both become /ʃ/. Other options?
- /x/ and /h/ sound distinct, at least to me, word-initially and generally syllable-initially. But it's harder for me personally to hear a difference in syllable final position; they both sound like "forceful" /h/'s. So I was thinking one or both could trigger a change in the preceding vowel, or in some cases, consonants following them. Does this sound likely? Or should I just end up merging them too?

[Pole, the]

- I was thinking that /s/ and /ʃ/ could merge when preceding /i ɨ j/, but I don't want them to both become /ʃ/. Other options?

Maybe s ʃ → [ɕ] / _{i ɨ j} and later ʃ → ʂ, [ɕ] being/becoming an allophone of /s/?

Or maybe ʃ → [ʃʷ]; later ʃi ʃɨ ʃj → ʃu ʃu ʃ and si sɨ sj → ʃi ʃɨ ʃj?

- /x/ and /h/ sound distinct, at least to me, word-initially and generally syllable-initially. But it's harder for me personally to hear a difference in syllable final position; they both sound like "forceful" /h/'s. So I was thinking one or both could trigger a change in the preceding vowel, or in some cases, consonants following them. Does this sound likely? Or should I just end up merging them too?

What about Vx Vh → Vː / _$?

[LinguistCat]

- I was thinking that /s/ and /ʃ/ could merge when preceding /i ɨ j/, but I don't want them to both become /ʃ/. Other options?

Maybe s ʃ → [ɕ] / _{i ɨ j} and later ʃ → ʂ, [ɕ] being/becoming an allophone of /s/?

Or maybe ʃ → [ʃʷ]; later ʃi ʃɨ ʃj → ʃu ʃu ʃ and si sɨ sj → ʃi ʃɨ ʃj?

I like both of these, but I think I like the second better.

- /x/ and /h/ sound distinct, at least to me, word-initially and generally syllable-initially. But it's harder for me personally to hear a difference in syllable final position; they both sound like "forceful" /h/'s. So I was thinking one or both could trigger a change in the preceding vowel, or in some cases, consonants following them. Does this sound likely? Or should I just end up merging them too?

What about Vx Vh → Vː / _$?

With these two, if I go with lengthening the vowel, I might also have /h/ leave pre-aspiration on following stops, so that they don't merge completely.

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll sleep on them.

[Pogostick Man]

Anybody know what I can do to plausibly derive and/or get rid of c͜ç, q͡χ, or their voiced counterparts?

[Thry]

plain ke, ki > ce, ci > cçe cçi is plausible (try and say it)
also kja kjo kju ... > cça cço cçu

[clawgrip]

Is something like ta̤ (tha ) tʰa attested?

[Click]

Is something like ta̤ (tha ) tʰa attested?

I don't know about its attestation, but it sounds plausible to me because it's not far from an ordinary regressive assimilation. Breathy voice/aspiration can "bleed" on the following vowels, making them breathy-voiced, why not vice versa?

[clawgrip]

Thanks, I'll go with that then.

[sangi39]

I have a question along a similar line of thought to the previous question.

Is it possible for a difference in +RTR vs. -RTR to "bleed" backwards onto the preceding consonant? For example:

-RTR: /i e a o u/
+RTR: /i̙ e̙ a̙ o̙ u̙/

/p b t d k g/ [p b t d k g] before -RTR vs. [p b ʈ ɖ q ɢ] before +RTR
/m n ŋ/ [m n ŋ] before -RTR vs. [m ɳ ɴ] before +RTR
/f s x/ [f s x] before -RTR vs. [f ʂ χ] before +RTR
/r l/ [r l] before -RTR vs. [ɽ ɭ] before +RTR

Thus consonants remain in generally the same position before -RTR vowels while non-labial consonants shift back in the mouth before +RTR vowel. I'm aware of similar processes using different contrasts, such as Slavic "syllabic synharmony" involving palatalisation and the movement of breathy voice onto following vowels, but I'm not entirely sure whether it's possible for this sort of process to occur with +RTR vs. -RTR so I was wondering if anyone else thinks it's plausible or not.

[Nortaneous]

I did pretty much that in Proto-Hathic so I have to say it's realistic. Would probably help to be pharyngealization instead of +RTR, but the two aren't that far off so it's not that important.

[sangi39]

Thanks I thought I'd read it somewhere, but couldn't remember exactly where. I just didn't want to start using it or passing that sort of information around if it wasn't at least somewhat plausible.

[WeepingElf]

I have a question along a similar line of thought to the previous question.

Is it possible for a difference in +RTR vs. -RTR to "bleed" backwards onto the preceding consonant? For example:

-RTR: /i e a o u/
+RTR: /i̙ e̙ a̙ o̙ u̙/

/p b t d k g/ [p b t d k g] before -RTR vs. [p b ʈ ɖ q ɢ] before +RTR
/m n ŋ/ [m n ŋ] before -RTR vs. [m ɳ ɴ] before +RTR
/f s x/ [f s x] before -RTR vs. [f ʂ χ] before +RTR
/r l/ [r l] before -RTR vs. [ɽ ɭ] before +RTR

Thus consonants remain in generally the same position before -RTR vowels while non-labial consonants shift back in the mouth before +RTR vowel. I'm aware of similar processes using different contrasts, such as Slavic "syllabic synharmony" involving palatalisation and the movement of breathy voice onto following vowels, but I'm not entirely sure whether it's possible for this sort of process to occur with +RTR vs. -RTR so I was wondering if anyone else thinks it's plausible or not.

This makes perfect sense to me. Retroflexion and uvularization are tongue gestures that are not far removed from tongue root retraction; this is quite a reasonable assimilation.

[Aili Meilani]

If I create glottalic stops from P + /?/ clusters, where the voicing of the P determines whether the result is an ejective or an implosive, is it plausible for /p?/ to result in /b_</ instead of expected /p_>/? Similarly, is it plausible for /g?/ to result in /k_>/ rather than /g_</?

[Hallow XIII]

If I create glottalic stops from P + /?/ clusters, where the voicing of the P determines whether the result is an ejective or an implosive, is it plausible for /p?/ to result in /b_</ instead of expected /p_>/? Similarly, is it plausible for /g?/ to result in /k_>/ rather than /g_</?

Yes. For the first one, in fact, see Mayan languages.