zompist bboard

WE ARE MOVING - see Ephemera
It is currently Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:26 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2832 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:01 am 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 11:22 am
Posts: 114
Intergalactic Standard and Baikal have merged [ʁ ɹ l] into [ʟ̠]. What effect would that have on [ɬ]? According to this chart, the resulting change doesn't have a letter and may be completely unattested. Also, [r] has merged into [ʀ] due to the loss of [ɹ].


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:14 am 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:44 am
Posts: 1998
Location: suburbs of Mrin
I doubt [ʟ̠] is stable as a phoneme anyway. It probably shift to a velar and pair with /ʟ̝̊/

_________________
ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!
kårroť


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:25 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Posts: 3581
Location: Milwaukee, US
I likewise highly doubt [ʟ̠] would exist for long, and question the likelihood of a sound change that would produce it in the first place. Same thing with its voiceless fricative counterpart.

_________________
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 11:35 am 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 11:22 am
Posts: 114
Okay. Then, the merger will have been [ɹ l ʟ→ʁ].

Reposting the following because the original was lost in the shuffle of another conversation:
For a bit of context, <nk ng> assimilate into [ŋ] word-finally and preceding a word-final [ɑ o u] in Intergalactic Standard. If this would create minimal pairs, the words retain their former <nk ng> spellings, as opposed to the shortened <n> spellings of unpaired words. Would [ni→ɲ] preceding a word-final [ɑ o u] be a logical progression as well?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 11:45 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Posts: 3581
Location: Milwaukee, US
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
Okay. Then, the merger will have been [ɹ l ʟ→ʁ].

Reposting the following because the original was lost in the shuffle of another conversation:
For a bit of context, <nk ng> assimilate into [ŋ] word-finally and preceding a word-final [ɑ o u] in Intergalactic Standard. If this would create minimal pairs, the words retain their former <nk ng> spellings, as opposed to the shortened <n> spellings of unpaired words. Would [ni→ɲ] preceding a word-final [ɑ o u] be a logical progression as well?

ni > ɲ is not exactly the sort of sound change one needs to justify. Palatalization before high front vowels needs no excuse.

_________________
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:07 pm 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 2:43 am
Posts: 102
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Is it possible to somehow turn palatals into retroflexes, or vice versa?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:54 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Posts: 3581
Location: Milwaukee, US
Knit Tie wrote:
Is it possible to somehow turn palatals into retroflexes, or vice versa?

Alveolopalatals have become retroflexes in various Slavic languages.

_________________
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 11:25 pm 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 2:43 am
Posts: 102
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Travis B. wrote:
Knit Tie wrote:
Is it possible to somehow turn palatals into retroflexes, or vice versa?

Alveolopalatals have become retroflexes in various Slavic languages.

Are those true retroflexes, though? As far as I know, Slavic retroflex fricatives are just apical postalveolar.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 11:40 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:25 pm
Posts: 2260
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Machvano Vlax Romani has /t͡ʃʰ/ > [ʈr] and /d͡ʒ/ > [ɖr].


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:11 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
Posts: 4545
Location: the Imperial Corridor
Palatals became apical postalveolar in Mandarin, and Slavic has apical postalveolars as outcomes of palatalizing sound changes.

Aren't true retroflexes very rare outside Dravidian? And do they ever contrast with apical postalveolars?

A voiceless velar lateral fricative is attested in a few languages in New Guinea. As for where to go from there, Hiw developed gL\) from *r and is currently merging it into G, so L\_0 L\ > x G seems reasonable. But you wouldn't have so many consonants merging into velar laterals, much less postvelar. Maybe K l > s` r\, r\ > L\; could also have s` > L\_0.

_________________
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:12 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:25 pm
Posts: 2260
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Nortaneous wrote:
do they ever contrast with apical postalveolars?

Yes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2018 1:40 pm 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 2:43 am
Posts: 102
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Nortaneous wrote:
Aren't true retroflexes very rare outside Dravidian? And do they ever contrast with apical postalveolars?


True, subapical palatal retroflexes are also found almost everywhere in Australian aboriginal languages, where they happily contrast with apical alveolars and laminal palatals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:11 am 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 2:43 am
Posts: 102
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
To continue bothering people with my conlang, would you say that /ʕ/ and /ʁ/ merging together into /ɰ/, which then subsequently becomes /ə̯/ in coda to form centralising diphthongs is plausible? Also, how can you turn /ʃ/ and /ʒ/ into /s̪/ through an intermediate without using /ɬ/, and what can you do with /ɫ̪ˤ/ and /ɾ̪ˤ/ that isn't too outlandish aside from merging them with regular liquids?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:21 am 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 2:57 pm
Posts: 1228
Location: Scattered disc
Is the dental flap a variant of the coronal, always pharyngealizedm? I think that the pharyngealization would stick around longer than the dental articulation.


Spanish did something very similar with its sibilants....
The palatal sibilants turned into apical sounds, which skipped past the alveolar sound and into the dental.

÷÷÷÷÷




Neither my phone nor my pc is capable of adding "pharyngealization " to its dictionary, I'm guessing it hits a limit of number of letters. Sorry for persistent typos.

_________________
Sunàqʷa the Sea Lamprey says:
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:51 pm 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 2:43 am
Posts: 102
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
The dental flap is indeed a variant of the coronal, and I'm trying to get rid of the pharyngealised series as a whole.

As for the postalveolars, I'm afraid simply shifting them to /s̪/ won't work, as I'm trying to, essentially, have /s/ and /ʃ/ switch places. Or did you mean something else by that Spanish example?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 2:57 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:00 pm
Posts: 1139
Knit Tie wrote:
Also, how can you turn /ʃ/ and /ʒ/ into /s̪/ through an intermediate without using /ɬ/

Well, as far as plausability goes, no intermediate necessary. Devoicing /ʒ/ > /ʃ/ is extremely plausible; /ʃ/ > /s̪/ is also extremely plausible. If you want /ʃ/ and /s/ to switch places, how about this:

/s/ > /s̠/ > /ʃ/ (pretty certain this is attested in some languages in the American Southwest)
/ʃ ʒ/ > /s̪/

_________________
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:49 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
Posts: 4545
Location: the Imperial Corridor
s > θ (Zhuang, Turkmen, Burmese)
ʃ > s
θ > ʃ (Biblical Hebrew)

_________________
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 1:40 pm 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 2:43 am
Posts: 102
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Nortaneous wrote:
s > θ (Zhuang, Turkmen, Burmese)
ʃ > s
θ > ʃ (Biblical Hebrew)


This looks nice, Nort, but I'm not sure if I can exclude the dental /s̪ˤ/ from this change, as I'd like to do. Perhaps I could go with something like this?

s̪ˤ > θ
ʃ > s̻
s > s̺ > ʃ
s̻ > s
θ > s


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:50 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:00 pm
Posts: 1139
Knit Tie wrote:
Nortaneous wrote:
s > θ (Zhuang, Turkmen, Burmese)
ʃ > s
θ > ʃ (Biblical Hebrew)


This looks nice, Nort, but I'm not sure if I can exclude the dental /s̪ˤ/ from this change, as I'd like to do. Perhaps I could go with something like this?

s̪ˤ > θ
ʃ > s̻
s > s̺ > ʃ
s̻ > s
θ > s

So your ultimate goal is that s > ʃ, s̪ˤ ʃ > s? What you posite works, but I think it can be done more simply.

s > s̺ > ʃ
ʃ > s (no intermediate necessary, widely attested)
s̪ˤ > s

_________________
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:00 pm 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 2:43 am
Posts: 102
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Zaarin wrote:
So your ultimate goal is that s > ʃ, s̪ˤ ʃ > s? What you posite works, but I think it can be done more simply.

s > s̺ > ʃ
ʃ > s (no intermediate necessary, widely attested)
s̪ˤ > s

So two phonemes can simply switch like that? Without merging?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:56 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Posts: 3581
Location: Milwaukee, US
Knit Tie wrote:
Zaarin wrote:
So your ultimate goal is that s > ʃ, s̪ˤ ʃ > s? What you posite works, but I think it can be done more simply.

s > s̺ > ʃ
ʃ > s (no intermediate necessary, widely attested)
s̪ˤ > s

So two phonemes can simply switch like that? Without merging?

Note the intermediate step of s̺.

_________________
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2018 8:32 am 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 11:22 am
Posts: 114
[Redacted for further discussion in my inventory questions topic.]


Last edited by yangfiretiger121 on Sun Mar 11, 2018 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2018 11:19 am 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:25 pm
Posts: 2260
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Knit Tie wrote:
So two phonemes can simply switch like that? Without merging?

I think something like that might have happened in some Eastern Indo-Aryan language varieties with [s] vs. [ʃ].


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 9:57 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
Posts: 4545
Location: the Imperial Corridor
apparently Mandan did that

_________________
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2018 5:06 am 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 2:43 am
Posts: 102
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Would it be possible, in some hypothetical future variety of English, for methathesis to occur thay would switch syllabic sonoranit into the coda of the preceding syllable, e.g.:

castle /kʰæsɫ̩/ → /kʰæɫs/
nation /neɪ̯ʃn̩/ → /neɪ̯nʃ/
acre /eɪ̯ʔkɻ̩/ → /eɪ̯ɻʔk/

Or should I go for something more indirect, e.g.:

castle /kʰæsɫ̩/ → /kʰæsɫə/ → /kʰæɫsə/ → /kʰæɫs/
or castle /kʰæsɫ̩/ → /kʰæsəɫ/ → /kʰæsɫə/ → /'kʰæɫsə/ → /kʰæɫs/?

I've also got another question: what conditional sound changes do people here like the most? I've been trying to put some in my conlang's diachronica, but I don't know which ones to choose.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2832 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group