Sound Change Quickie Thread

[Clearsand]

How about /tt/ /θ/ ?

[CatDoom]

How about /tt/ /θ/ ?

Not directly, I don't think; geminate consonants tend to be highly resistant to lenition processes other than being reduced to a singletons. However, in the Chumashan languages geminate consonants have become aspirated singletons, so I could see something like /tt/ > /tʰ/ > /θ/. Of course, this could cause problems if you've already got aspirated stops in the language.

[Clearsand]

No, I don't have any aspirated stops in the language. I just asked because I was using <tt> as romanization for the voiceless dental fricative. I thought it should have something to do with historical pronunciation.

[Pogostick Man]

Is /kʰ/ → /kˤ/ plausible?

I wouldn't say so, unless a change from aspirate to ejective is attested somewhere.

/kˤ/ is not an ejective.

I know, but ejective pharyngealized consonant is attested. I probably should've been clearer.

How about /tt/ /θ/ ?

Not directly, I don't think; geminate consonants tend to be highly resistant to lenition processes other than being reduced to a singletons. However, in the Chumashan languages geminate consonants have become aspirated singletons, so I could see something like /tt/ > /tʰ/ > /θ/. Of course, this could cause problems if you've already got aspirated stops in the language.

Perhaps not a geminate per se, but I've heard that at least some Latin -ss- < *-dt-.

[Nortaneous]

PIE dental assibilation tho

[KathTheDragon]

Germanic did it too. IIRC it went (T = dental stop) TT > TsT > Ts > ss

[WeepingElf]

Is /kʰ/ → /kˤ/ plausible?

I wouldn't say so, unless a change from aspirate to ejective is attested somewhere.

/kˤ/ is not an ejective.

I know, but ejective pharyngealized consonant is attested. I probably should've been clearer.

I understand.

[CatDoom]

Germanic did it too. IIRC it went (T = dental stop) TT > TsT > Ts > ss

I believe I've read that they reconstruct a phonological rule in PIE where dental stop clusters get broken up by an epenthetic [s], which presumably has effects in a lot of IE branches.

[Pole, the]

Germanic did it too. IIRC it went (T = dental stop) TT > TsT > Ts > ss

I believe I've read that they reconstruct a phonological rule in PIE where dental stop clusters get broken up by an epenthetic [s], which presumably has effects in a lot of IE branches.

Presumably it worked also for TK clusters that were first epenthetized to TsK and then metathetized to KTs.

[Tropylium]

Is /kʰ/ → /kˤ/ plausible?

I wouldn't say so, unless a change from aspirate to ejective is attested somewhere.

/kˤ/ is not an ejective.

I know, but ejective pharyngealized consonant is attested. I probably should've been clearer.

This might work though:
*kʰ > *kx > kχ > *kħ > *kˤ
The first three changes are all attested (though not really in succession), the 4th shouldn't be difficult.

[Chagen]

How does reducing vowels before a historically stressed or long vowel sound in terms of plausibility?

I want to screw around with Qulshni a little more, and I feel reducing syllables to /e/ or /a/ before a long vowel (and perhaps deleting them after one) will help to make some things fusional especially if I undergo syncope. I.e:

Proto-Pasuu *bʰaⁿgʰ-bʰíí-bʰa "while looking at" > Qulshni bəghbiv "while reading" > beghbiv (compare PP *bʰáⁿgʰaⁿda "I am looking at" > Qulshni baghəda > bagheda)

If I do this though it will wreak massive havoc in the nominal paradigms, though. But I could use it to derive a Germanic Strong Verb-like situation where ablaut is lost except in a few words which still undergo this change.

[Risla]

That is entirely reasonable, especially if you conceptualize your lang as having iambic feet.

[Chagen]

Good, I'm not well-versed on vowel changes. I'm gonna have to spend a lot of time using analogy to regularize the damage this will do to the nominal paradigms, however; for the record, with this, one group of nouns, derived from verbal roots, will in the indefinite singular have the root vowel all reduced. ALL.

So for instance the hypothetical proto-forms *ktanar ktenar ktunar ktonar ktinar will ALL reduce to ktənar. I may have to block the rule then or maybe restrict it only to reducing vowels after the stressed one.

[احمکي ارش-ھجن]

What are environments where /t d/ can be retroflexed, aside from near rhotics and /w/?

[KathTheDragon]

Probably any environment where retraction would happen, so before back vowels too?

[GreenBowTie]

i don't know if this is strictly a sound change question but it didn't seem to warrant its own thread. i'm working on a conlang (actually, trying to reconstruct it from memory after the loss of my notes) with an extremely small set of consonant phonemes with a very wide range of allophones. the consonants are /p t k n l/ (there are five vowels, a e i o ø u y). possible allophones, depending on neighboring sounds, are:
P: p, b, ɸ, β
T: t, d, s, z, tʃ, dʒ, ʃ, ʒ
K: k, g, x, ɣ, c, ɟ, ç, ʝ
N: n, m, ŋ, ɲ
L: l, w, ɫ, ʎ

basically:

• voiceless stops become: voiced stops adjacent to N or L; voiced fricatives between vowels either when solo or when adjacent to N or L; voiceless fricatives before unvoiced stops (or when geminated)
• N and L assimilate POA when adjacent to a stop
• when adjacent to a front vowel, all consonants or consonant clusters palatalize (but otherwise keep their MOA and voicing); P is the only exception, and blocks palatalization across a cluster if applicable (so /ilktu/ is [iʎʝdʒu] but /ilptu/ is [iʎβdu], since the P stopped the palatalization from "spreading" to the /t/)

i know this is a little overboard, but is it too overboard?

[Pogostick Man]

i don't know if this is strictly a sound change question but it didn't seem to warrant its own thread. i'm working on a conlang (actually, trying to reconstruct it from memory after the loss of my notes) with an extremely small set of consonant phonemes with a very wide range of allophones. the consonants are /p t k n l/ (there are five vowels, a e i o ø u y). possible allophones, depending on neighboring sounds, are:
P: p, b, ɸ, β
T: t, d, s, z, tʃ, dʒ, ʃ, ʒ
K: k, g, x, ɣ, c, ɟ, ç, ʝ
N: n, m, ŋ, ɲ
L: l, w, ɫ, ʎ

basically:

• voiceless stops become: voiced stops adjacent to N or L; voiced fricatives between vowels either when solo or when adjacent to N or L; voiceless fricatives before unvoiced stops (or when geminated)
• N and L assimilate POA when adjacent to a stop
• when adjacent to a front vowel, all consonants or consonant clusters palatalize (but otherwise keep their MOA and voicing); P is the only exception, and blocks palatalization across a cluster if applicable (so /ilktu/ is [iʎʝdʒu] but /ilptu/ is [iʎβdu], since the P stopped the palatalization from "spreading" to the /t/)

i know this is a little overboard, but is it too overboard?

I wouldn't say so. Look at Pirahã or Lakes Plain.

[Pogostick Man]

Is there any natlang precedent for different tones of vowels changing to a height distinction? Say, é è > e ɛ?

[Nortaneous]

no, but there is for breathy voice

[Pole, the]

Is there any natlang precedent for different tones of vowels changing to a height distinction? Say, é è > e ɛ?

Maybe Khmer?

[Nortaneous]

that is one of the precedents for breathy voice

[CatDoom]

This paper talks about the effects of breathy and creaky phonation on vowel quality and breaking. I'm not sure it's attested, but it seems conceivable that certain certain tones might develop breathy or creaky phonation to reinforce their distinctiveness.

[Nortaneous]

^ They'd probably have them from the start -- that's what happened in East Asia, isn't it? (Was Burmese ever tonal?)

How stable are uvulars? I'm wondering whether I should get rid of them in one of the Kharidze languages -- probably producing diphthongs and vowel length depending on the position, like in Kannow (qi ɢi iq iɢ > kai (h)ai iak ii, it's a lot more complicated than that because velars and palatals also affect vowels but that's the general idea) -- but the family isn't much more... divergent? than West Germanic.

[Mugitus]

I'm newer to conlanging, so I hope i don't say something completely implausible, but anyway is it plausible for [ts] and [dz] to be allophones of velar consonants before front vowels? Thanks in advance!

[Zaarin]

Is ʍ x /_# attested anywhere...or at least look plausible?