Sound Change Quickie Thread

[Vijay]

Creek has [θ] and not [ɬ]?

EDIT: Woods Cree does have [ð], which apparently comes from Proto-Cree *l.

Maybe it's not Creek; maybe it's Choctaw-Chickasaw. At least one Muskogean language has ɬ > θ, anyway.

Some speakers of Choctaw pronounce /ɬ/ as [θ] (whereas others just have [ɬ]), so I guess it's an ongoing change rather than one that's been completed.

[Pogostick Man]

Maybe it's not Creek; maybe it's Choctaw-Chickasaw. At least one Muskogean language has ɬ > θ, anyway.

If I'm remembering Booker's 2005 paper "Muskogean Historical Phonology" right, it was the other way around in Eastern Muskogean.

[WeepingElf]

Creek has [θ] and not [ɬ]?

EDIT: Woods Cree does have [ð], which apparently comes from Proto-Cree *l.

Creek and Cree are utterly different languages.

[Vijay]

I know they're utterly different languages, but it did remind me of the fact that Woods Cree has that anyway.

[StrangerCoug]

Is /ʀ/ /ɣ/ /ɰ/ attested?

[jmcd]

I don't know about that but /ʀ/ /ʁ̞/ /ɰ/ happened in Réunion Creole in most varieties in coda position and in some varieties in all positions.

[Vijay]

In Krio, <r> is pronounced [ɣ], and apparently, this comes from what was originally an imitation of German missionaries using a voiced uvular continuant. IINM Maghrebi French also uses that sound for <r>. I also thought [ɰ] was the typical African French pronunciation of <r>.

[jmcd]

For African French, it might depend on the mother tongue. From people from the mainland continent, I'm more used to [r] but I suppose the velar approximant is possible as well.

[Zaarin]

Is Vh > ə plausible?

[Vijay]

I'd think that happened in two stages.

[Zaarin]

Note that I'm going for weird here, but does this stretch plausibility too much?

K>Q
T>K
Vɴ>Ṽ
ɴ>ʔ
ŋ>n

K=kgŋ
Q=qɢɴ
T=tdn

[Porphyrogenitos]

Is Vh > ə plausible?

Probably, assuming it's before a consonant or word-final - I bet it'd go something like this:

Vh > Və̯ > ə

Or (though this would affect vowels before all consonants) vowels in closed syllables could shorten, and then all short vowels could reduce to /ə/, and then /h/ could drop.

Note that I'm going for weird here, but does this stretch plausibility too much?

K>Q
T>K
Vɴ>Ṽ
ɴ>ʔ
ŋ>n

K=kgŋ
Q=qɢɴ
T=tdn

The first two changes seem like a plausible extension of the t > k > q/ʔ shift, which is attested in a number of languages.

The third change is entirely unremarkable.

Tahitian underwent ŋ > ʔ, so a uvular > glottal change seems entirely plausible. And Hawai'ian underwent ŋ > n.

[Zaarin]

Is Vh > ə plausible?

Probably, assuming it's before a consonant or word-final - I bet it'd go something like this:

Vh > Və̯ > ə

Or (though this would affect vowels before all consonants) vowels in closed syllables could shorten, and then all short vowels could reduce to /ə/, and then /h/ could drop.

Note that I'm going for weird here, but does this stretch plausibility too much?

K>Q
T>K
Vɴ>Ṽ
ɴ>ʔ
ŋ>n

K=kgŋ
Q=qɢɴ
T=tdn

The first two changes seem like a plausible extension of the t > k > q/ʔ shift, which is attested in a number of languages.

The third change is entirely unremarkable.

Tahitian underwent ŋ > ʔ, so a uvular > glottal change seems entirely plausible. And Hawai'ian underwent ŋ > n.

Thanks. In the first change I'm looking for a more or less complete collapse and restructuring of the vowel system, so that works.

[jmcd]

I think we might need to take into consideration the number of phonemes in the language's phoneme inventory: ŋ > ʔ is certainly viable but is perhaps easier to imagine in a language with a grand total of nine consonants than a language with 4 times that number.

[Zaarin]

I think we might need to take into consideration the number of phonemes in the language's phoneme inventory: ŋ > ʔ is certainly viable but is perhaps easier to imagine in a language with a grand total of nine consonants than a language with 4 times that number.

Well, the language went through a total velar-to-uvular shift, including ŋ > ɴ. I'm aware /ɴ/ is an unstable phoneme at best; I don't want it to revert to /ŋ/ (or /n/) and I don't want it to become /ɢ/ (which already collapsed into /q/). /ʔ/ seemed like the likeliest end result. I don't recall the exact number of phonemes, but it's basically /N p pʰ b k kʰ g q qʰ ʔ s x h j w ɮ/. N is an archiphoneme usually realized as [n] but assimilating to the point of articulation of a following consonant.

[Chengjiang]

Well, the language went through a total velar-to-uvular shift, including ŋ > ɴ. I'm aware /ɴ/ is an unstable phoneme at best; I don't want it to revert to /ŋ/ (or /n/) and I don't want it to become /ɢ/ (which already collapsed into /q/). /ʔ/ seemed like the likeliest end result. I don't recall the exact number of phonemes, but it's basically /N p pʰ b k kʰ g q qʰ ʔ s x h j w ɮ/. N is an archiphoneme usually realized as [n] but assimilating to the point of articulation of a following consonant.

/ɴ/ is unstable, but I don't think [ɴ] "supported" by a following uvular really is. It doesn't need to change.

[Zaarin]

Well, the language went through a total velar-to-uvular shift, including ŋ > ɴ. I'm aware /ɴ/ is an unstable phoneme at best; I don't want it to revert to /ŋ/ (or /n/) and I don't want it to become /ɢ/ (which already collapsed into /q/). /ʔ/ seemed like the likeliest end result. I don't recall the exact number of phonemes, but it's basically /N p pʰ b k kʰ g q qʰ ʔ s x h j w ɮ/. N is an archiphoneme usually realized as [n] but assimilating to the point of articulation of a following consonant.

/ɴ/ is unstable, but I don't think [ɴ] "supported" by a following uvular really is. It doesn't need to change.

True, and the language has [ɴ], in that /N/ is [m n ŋ ɴ], but /ɴ/ from previous /ŋ/ would be syllable-initial only, since non-initial /ɴ/ had already been deleted after causing nasalation of preceding vowels.

[Chengjiang]

True, and the language has [ɴ], in that /N/ is [m n ŋ ɴ], but /ɴ/ from previous /ŋ/ would be syllable-initial only, since non-initial /ɴ/ had already been deleted after causing nasalation of preceding vowels.

Ah, sorry. I thought the inventory you posted was for the ancestor, not the end result.

[Zaarin]

True, and the language has [ɴ], in that /N/ is [m n ŋ ɴ], but /ɴ/ from previous /ŋ/ would be syllable-initial only, since non-initial /ɴ/ had already been deleted after causing nasalation of preceding vowels.

Ah, sorry. I thought the inventory you posted was for the ancestor, not the end result.

No, the ancestor had /m n ŋ p pʰ b bʱ t tʰ d dʱ k kʰ g gʱ q qʰ ɢ ɢʱ f s ʃ h ɹ ɬ ɮ/.

[StrangerCoug]

No, the ancestor had /m n ŋ p pʰ g gʱ t tʰ d dʱ k kʰ g gʱ q qʰ ɢ ɢʱ f s ʃ h ɹ ɬ ɮ/.

Do you mean /b bʱ/ instead of the first /g gʱ/? You have the latter twice.

[Zaarin]

No, the ancestor had /m n ŋ p pʰ g gʱ t tʰ d dʱ k kʰ g gʱ q qʰ ɢ ɢʱ f s ʃ h ɹ ɬ ɮ/.

Do you mean /b bʱ/ instead of the first /g gʱ/? You have the latter twice.

Yes. Fixed.

[vokzhen]

Is vowel breathiness > stop aspiration attested? It's one of those things that makes sense, but upon further looking I haven't gotten anywhere seeing if it's actually something that happens, especially with regards to voiceless stops aspirating.

[Travis B.]

I am doing the opposite in Middle Laeh Tshyak, where plosive aspiration > vowel breathiness (> vowel diphthongization, a la Khmer).

[Tropylium]

Is vowel breathiness > stop aspiration attested? It's one of those things that makes sense, but upon further looking I haven't gotten anywhere seeing if it's actually something that happens, especially with regards to voiceless stops aspirating.

Vowel breathiness usually comes from aspiration in the first place, so it's kinda hard to tell.

[Benturi]

Is the sound change /s/ + voiceless stop > voiceless fricative (e.g., /st/ > /θ/, /sk/ > /x/) attested in some natural language? Caesaraugusta > Zaragoza could be an examßple of /st/ > /θ/ (through Arabic "Saraqusta", I think), but I don't think it was a regular sound change.