Sound Change Quickie Thread

[Nortaneous]

From a proto-lang with a series of laminal coronals phonemically contrasted with the apicals:

Would it make sense to do something like [t̻ s̻ ʦ̻] -> [θ ʃ ʧ]?

I'd say you can have the first change or the second two, but not both, at least without a significant block of time in between.

Would t̻ be more likely to shift in the palatal/postalveolar direction rather than to θ?

To θ is fine if it's an apical retroflex / laminal dental distinction.

Would s̻ be more likely go the other way?

To a postalveolar? That's fine if it's an apical dental / laminal alveolo-palatal distinction.

How likely is the genesis of θ if there are no other plosive -> fricative changes?

It's fine. Go through an affricate as an intermediary if you want.

If the proto-lang has all of /tʰ t s ʦ n l/ as apical coronals, which ones are least likely to have contrasting laminals? Would it make sense for some of the apical/laminal pairs to merge, but not others?

My guess -- and this is just a guess -- would be, in descending order of likelihood of contrasting laminals, ʦ s n l tʰ t. But even that isn't a strict rule; you can get away with pretty much whatever as long as it makes sense. I would at least expect to see a contrast in fricatives and affricates, though.

Are laminals less stable than apicals (or vice versa)?

I have no idea.

[faiuwle]

Ok, I see. So I could do something like:

/tʰ (t̻ʰ) t t̻ s s̻ ʦ ʦ̻.../

(possible merging of plosives here)
laminals -> laminal dental
apicals -> retroflex
s̪ -> θ
ʦ̪ -> s̪ (in some environments)

/(tʰ| ʈʰ) t ʈ s ʂ tʂ θ/
maybe minus some plosives, with /s/ having [ʦ] as an allophone, and the retroflexes could become /ʃ ʧ/, etc. if necessary. (You don't normally get contrasts with /ʃ ʂ/, right?)

[jmcd]

I don't know of a /ʃ ʂ/ contrast. I thought Sanskrit might be an example but that's actually /ɕ ʂ/. Anyway, what you got above there seems good.

[Bob Johnson]

I don't know of a /ʃ ʂ/ contrast. I thought Sanskrit might be an example but that's actually /ɕ ʂ/. Anyway, what you got above there seems good.

Norwegian. Though is there any useful difference between ʃ and ɕ?

[finlay]

I don't know of a /ʃ ʂ/ contrast. I thought Sanskrit might be an example but that's actually /ɕ ʂ/. Anyway, what you got above there seems good.

Norwegian. Though is there any useful difference between ʃ and ɕ?

ɕ may be further back than ʃ; ɕ is more likely to be laminal and ʃ is more likely to be apical, I think. ɕ is basically a sibilant version of ç. It seems to be somewhat standard or common that if you have two ʃ-like fricatives, they'll be ɕ and ʂ – this is because they're more phonetically distinct than ɕ/ʃ or ʃ/ʂ. ʃ is sort of halfway between the other two.

It's like if you have two open vowels, they're likely to be front a and back ɑ; neither is likely to be phonetically central, because it doesn't maximize the distinction. But a central a/back ɑ or front æ/central a distinction is still possible.

ʃ/ʂ is perfectly fine of course. Another thing to note is that English ʃ tends to have lip-rounding (in.. most dialects?), which makes it even more phonetically similar to ʂ; take that away and they're easier to distinguish. I'll provide a recording if you're still confused by this point.

[Grimalkin]

I'm trying to get ejectives into one of my a posteriori conlangs, and I'd like to know how plausible these sound changes are:

sp st sk > p' t' k'
pt kt > t'
pp tt kk > p' t' k'

[Grunnen]

I'm trying to get ejectives into one of my a posteriori conlangs, and I'd like to know how plausible these sound changes are:

sp st sk > p' t' k'
pt kt > t'
pp tt kk > p' t' k'

I'm definitely not an expert, but I'd think something like the following would be possible:
sp>tp>ʔp>pʼ
st>tt>ʔt>tʼ
sk>tk>ʔk>kʼ
pt>ʔt>tʼ
kt>ʔt>tʼ
Well, you get the point. Especially if these plosives are aspirated it would work I think. How about:
sp>tp>ʔp>ʔpʰ>pʼ
From ʔpʰ to pʼ is just changing the timing of the glottal constriction, as far as I'm aware. But I might very well be wrong.

I've been trying to get ejectives in my own langs that way as well. So I'd be interested to hear if it's bullshit.

[Nortaneous]

sp st sk > p' t' k'
pt kt > t'
pp tt kk > p' t' k'

Probably the easiest way to do that is (P = plosive)
sP -> P:
Pt -> P:
P: -> P'

[finlay]

I'm trying to get ejectives into one of my a posteriori conlangs, and I'd like to know how plausible these sound changes are:

sp st sk > p' t' k'
pt kt > t'
pp tt kk > p' t' k'

I think a basic metric for sound changes could be "do they sound similar?" In this case, I don't think the first change is likely to change directly to an ejective, but I can certainly buy it for the other two (especially if you go pt kt → tt first and then apply the third change to that).

Or yeah, what nort said.

[Wattmann]

How would one expect aspirate fricatives to arise?
I'm asking because the way I made them (sF => F: => F^h) seems a bit... meh and lame.

[Grimalkin]

Thanks for the replies guys! I'll do what Nort said.

On a slight tangent, anyone know how Armenian developed ejectives? (probably best to PM me so that this thread doesn't derail..)

[Atom]

How would one expect aspirate fricatives to arise?
I'm asking because the way I made them (sF => F: => F^h) seems a bit... meh and lame.

In Burmese, what happened was /ts(^h)/ -> /s(^h)/. Some languages in Tibet did a lot of consonant cluster simplification. Also, they're very rare, especially more than just s^h. How many do you have?

A good article for this is here:http://cnrs.academia.edu/GuillaumeJacqu ... _from_Pumi

[----]

I know about θ > f in a few dialects of English, but this could easily happen the other way around in a language, especially if the language already had /θ/ in other places, couldn't it?

[Wattmann]

How would one expect aspirate fricatives to arise?
I'm asking because the way I made them (sF => F: => F^h) seems a bit... meh and lame.

In Burmese, what happened was /ts(^h)/ -> /s(^h)/. Some languages in Tibet did a lot of consonant cluster simplification. Also, they're very rare, especially more than just s^h. How many do you have?

A good article for this is here:http://cnrs.academia.edu/GuillaumeJacqu ... _from_Pumi

Thanks for the link.

I have (actually, had) four aspirated fricatives, contrasting with standard : /s/ : /sʰ/; /f/ : /fʰ/; /ɸ/ : /ɸʰ/ and /ʂ/ : /ʂʰ/ (this last one coming from *ʃ : *ʃʰ )
It came from cluster simplification and preservation of aspiration in the affricate > fricative process.

[Grunnen]

I have (actually, had) four aspirated fricatives, contrasting with standard : /s/ : /sʰ/; /f/ : /fʰ/; /ɸ/ : /ɸʰ/ and /ʂ/ : /ʂʰ/ (this last one coming from *ʃ : *ʃʰ )

/f/ and /ɸ/ don't really contrast all that well. Do you have something that distinguishes these sounds? Otherwise you'd think they'd merge.
Oh wait, had...

[Wattmann]

I have (actually, had) four aspirated fricatives, contrasting with standard : /s/ : /sʰ/; /f/ : /fʰ/; /ɸ/ : /ɸʰ/ and /ʂ/ : /ʂʰ/ (this last one coming from *ʃ : *ʃʰ )

/f/ and /ɸ/ don't really contrast all that well. Do you have something that distinguishes these sounds? Otherwise you'd think they'd merge.
Oh wait, had...

/f/ is mostly a convenient alternative for /p​̪/ since it patterns as a fricative, and was part of the sound change shift of /θ/ /f/ /ɸ/ and later /f/ [p​̪]

[Grunnen]

I have (actually, had) four aspirated fricatives, contrasting with standard : /s/ : /sʰ/; /f/ : /fʰ/; /ɸ/ : /ɸʰ/ and /ʂ/ : /ʂʰ/ (this last one coming from *ʃ : *ʃʰ )

/f/ and /ɸ/ don't really contrast all that well. Do you have something that distinguishes these sounds? Otherwise you'd think they'd merge.
Oh wait, had...

/f/ is mostly a convenient alternative for /p​̪/ since it patterns as a fricative, and was part of the sound change shift of /θ/ /f/ /ɸ/ and later /f/ [p​̪]

I would reed [p​̪] as a [p] with a primary dental poa. But that is probably not what you had in mind. Anyway, if it's not actually a /f/ ~ /ɸ/-distinction my comment about it not being contrastive doesn't hold off course.

[Wattmann]

I have (actually, had) four aspirated fricatives, contrasting with standard : /s/ : /sʰ/; /f/ : /fʰ/; /ɸ/ : /ɸʰ/ and /ʂ/ : /ʂʰ/ (this last one coming from *ʃ : *ʃʰ )

/f/ and /ɸ/ don't really contrast all that well. Do you have something that distinguishes these sounds? Otherwise you'd think they'd merge.
Oh wait, had...

/f/ is mostly a convenient alternative for /p​̪/ since it patterns as a fricative, and was part of the sound change shift of /θ/ /f/ /ɸ/ and later /f/ [p​̪]

I would reed [p​̪] as a [p] with a primary dental poa. But that is probably not what you had in mind. Anyway, if it's not actually a /f/ ~ /ɸ/-distinction my comment about it not being contrastive doesn't hold off course.

I already have /p/
And, unlike fricatives, it doesn't have batshit alternations with velar approximants. Since nobody has perfect and natural teeth in a tribal society, it's something like [p​̪͡f] or [p​̪^f] while beinɡ in between [p​̪] and [f]

[jmcd]

In any case, it might be rare but there are languages that do contrast labial and labio-dental fricatives Ewe for example. So as long as you have more than two fricatives (though probably more still tbh), it should be fine.

[Wattmann]

In any case, it might be rare but there are languages that do contrast labial and labio-dental fricatives Ewe for example. So as long as you have more than two fricatives (though probably more still tbh), it should be fine.

There are eight fricatives, four of which are at least partially labial. Enough, I reckon.

[Tropylium]

How would one expect aspirate fricatives to arise?

A good article for this is here:http://cnrs.academia.edu/GuillaumeJacqu ... _from_Pumi

Whoa, that's an excellent paper. :D Brb, dumping info on Frathwiki…

I know about θ > f in a few dialects of English, but this could easily happen the other way around in a language, especially if the language already had /θ/ in other places, couldn't it?

I was going to comment that this seems like one of those unlikely-in-the-opposite-direction changes (eg. how kʲ → c → tɕ → ts → s or something therearound is very common, while any of the steps only rarely occur unconditionally in reverse), but the previous paper seems to have an example of a language where *s *x → /f s/; if that can occur, *θ → f surely should too.

[Pole, the]

Which of these would be the most likely to happen?

a. /sp st sk/ into aspirates, later fricatives
or
b. /p t k/ into aspirates, later fricatives; /sp st sk/ into plain /p t k/

It may also be combined with /b bʰ/ > /b v/ vs. /v b/, giving even more possibilites.

[Tropylium]

Which of these would be the most likely to happen?

a. /sp st sk/ into aspirates, later fricatives
or
b. /p t k/ into aspirates, later fricatives; /sp st sk/ into plain /p t k/

I'm not sure if sufficient data is known to rate the overall independant plausibility of these. The first stage of (a) is known from eg. Tsakonian, the first stage of (b) from eg. Germanic, so both are clearly possible at least.

The question may depend on what else you have going on, however; the Tsakonian change occurred in conjunction with simplification of almost all consonant clusters, whereas (b) would not seem to require anything like that to be going on (sp → p would be simply filling the gap left by p → f).

It may also be combined with /b bʰ/ > /b v/ vs. /v b/, giving even more possibilites.

I'm not sure if either of those is known, however. The tendency of voiceless aspirates to fricativize comes from the release of the aspiration; voiced stops (aspirated or not) have weaker release so that doesn't really apply. You could probably justify either change, but I don't think there is need for it to go the same way as with the voiceless stops.

[Drydic]

How would one expect aspirate fricatives to arise?

A good article for this is here:http://cnrs.academia.edu/GuillaumeJacqu ... _from_Pumi

Whoa, that's an excellent paper. Brb, dumping info on Frathwiki…

Please give a link when you get done, for those of us who can't access that site.

[Tropylium]

How would one expect aspirate fricatives to arise?

A good article for this is here:http://cnrs.academia.edu/GuillaumeJacqu ... _from_Pumi

Whoa, that's an excellent paper. Brb, dumping info on Frathwiki…

Please give a link when you get done, for those of us who can't access that site.

Gonna be at http://www.frathwiki.com/Aspiration. Won't be done today, tho…