Sound Change Quickie Thread

[WeepingElf]

Yeah, I'd agree on that. Would certainly explain the sound system mutability difference between 1300s and modern English and the equivalent Icelandic, for example.

The way this works, I think, is that in stable periods, there is some sort of (maybe informal) "standard" people adhere to which slows down sound change, while in periods of upheaval, such conventions break down, and language changes more rapidly. I don't know, though, how much sense that actually makes.

[Grunnen]

Yeah, I'd agree on that. Would certainly explain the sound system mutability difference between 1300s and modern English and the equivalent Icelandic, for example.

The way this works, I think, is that in stable periods, there is some sort of (maybe informal) "standard" people adhere to which slows down sound change, while in periods of upheaval, such conventions break down, and language changes more rapidly. I don't know, though, how much sense that actually makes.

Maybe also new standards get accepted more easily during those periods? Maybe it's not so much about the changing taking place, but for the new sound (distribution) to get established as the standard in stead of falling out of use. I have no idea, but I could see this happen very much.

[Click]

Are the following four sound changes plausible? If not already obvious enough, they're ordered chronologically.

1. [mʲ] [pʲ] [β̞ʲ] → [ɲ] [c] [j]
2. [ɲ] → [j]
3. [c] → [cç]
4. [ɲ] [cç] [ç]¹ [j] → [n] [ts] [s] [ð̞]

¹ Already existing before the palatalisation.

[Cedh]

Yes. Palatalised labials > palatals has happened in French (Latin RUBIUM > rouge [ʁuːʒ]).
Alternatively, you could use the following sequence:
[mʲ] [pʲ] [β̞ʲ] → [mn] [pθ] [β̞ð̞] → [n] [ts] [ð̞]

(You currently seem to have two conflicting changes to [ɲ] btw.)

[Click]

Thanks! ☺

(You currently seem to have two conflicting changes to [ɲ] btw.

Gah, this results from careless copy-pasting.

• [ɲ] → [j] → [ð̞] is what actually happens.

[ObsequiousNewt]

TBH, I don't know if this has happened diachronically in any language, but it happens all the time with borrowings.

Another thing that often happens with nasal vowels is mergers.

And both of us forgot Spanish (although the vowels did remain nasalized.)

I kinda remember someone legitimate on the forum saying it's about one major change (such as the GVS) per century, and I've cited that figure several times over. Haven't seen actual literature cite it, though.

Would this be taking into account simultaneous, unrelated changes though?

Also, new question: What is the largest single chain-shift known? (as in, most "links" in the chain.)

[Nortaneous]

Is it at all plausible to have a series of palatals but no velars (except allophonically)? If so, how might it come about? Fronting of velars?

I in fact have one right now. It came about from a system with only labials and alveolars, and the alveolars became palatalized. Look at my Proto-Elmin thread if you'd like more details

Relatedly, does it make any sense to turn a nasalised vowel into a nasal consonant?

õ > on and then deleting the vowel.

Thanks; I wasn't sure if it was plausible to do... well, anything with a nasalized vowel, besides denasalizing it.

TBH, I don't know if this has happened diachronically in any language

Polish

[jmcd]

I would say sound change is likely to happen faster when the language is not written, when there is political upheaval and when there is more immigration to the place. Same with other language changes. In short, changes in society encourage changes in language.

[sangi39]

This is probably a ridiculously easy question to answer, but I'll ask anyway

Palatalisation of a consonant appearing before a front unrounded vowel, e.g. /i/, is obvious, but in a language with, say, /i y u/ is it possible for palatalisation to occur only before /i/ or would it occur before /y/ as well?

The only example I can think of is king from OE cyning vs. cheese from OE ċēse, but I'm not sure whether the palatalisation found in cheese occurred before or after the fronting of /u/ to /y/.

[Hallow XIII]

Mandarin palatalized consonants before /y/.

NE: Wait, you are asking whether you can palatalize *only* before /i/. Um... I would go out on a limb here and say that yes, this probably works, but I certainly couldn't produce a precedent.

[sangi39]

Wait, you are asking whether you can palatalize *only* before /i/.

Yep

Um... I would go out on a limb here and say that yes, this probably works, but I certainly couldn't produce a precedent.

Yeah, I'm under the impression that it's a t least possible, but like you just can't find a natlang precedent that I'm actually 100% sure represents the restricted palatalisation I'm thinking of. There's that old English example but I'm not sure if what happened was:

/ky/ > [ky] > [ki]
/ki/ > [tʃi] > [tʃi]

Where palatalisation happened before /i/ but not /y/, or if it was:

/ku/ > [ku] > [ky] under i-umlaut
/ki/ > [tʃi] > [tʃi]

Where palatalisation occurred before the development of OE /y/.

[Grunnen]

This is probably a ridiculously easy question to answer, but I'll ask anyway

Palatalisation of a consonant appearing before a front unrounded vowel, e.g. /i/, is obvious, but in a language with, say, /i y u/ is it possible for palatalisation to occur only before /i/ or would it occur before /y/ as well?

The only example I can think of is king from OE cyning vs. cheese from OE ċēse, but I'm not sure whether the palatalisation found in cheese occurred before or after the fronting of /u/ to /y/.

I couldn't give any examples, but considering front rounded vowels tend to actually be more centralised than normal front vowels, it would seem a logical possibility at least.

[WeepingElf]

This is probably a ridiculously easy question to answer, but I'll ask anyway

Palatalisation of a consonant appearing before a front unrounded vowel, e.g. /i/, is obvious, but in a language with, say, /i y u/ is it possible for palatalisation to occur only before /i/ or would it occur before /y/ as well?

The only example I can think of is king from OE cyning vs. cheese from OE ċēse, but I'm not sure whether the palatalisation found in cheese occurred before or after the fronting of /u/ to /y/.

I couldn't give any examples, but considering front rounded vowels tend to actually be more centralised than normal front vowels, it would seem a logical possibility at least.

I think i-umlaut (the process that fronted back vowels before /i/ in the next syllable) already happened in Common West Germanic, but the resulting front vowels were still allophones of the back vowels for a long time (which is the reason why they were not consistently marked in the Old High German orthography, for instance), namely until unstressed vowels were weakened, which created minimal pairs for them. The palatalization of velars before front vowels probably fell within this long time (it also happened in Frisian, but not in Dutch and German).

[Grunnen]

This is probably a ridiculously easy question to answer, but I'll ask anyway

Palatalisation of a consonant appearing before a front unrounded vowel, e.g. /i/, is obvious, but in a language with, say, /i y u/ is it possible for palatalisation to occur only before /i/ or would it occur before /y/ as well?

The only example I can think of is king from OE cyning vs. cheese from OE ċēse, but I'm not sure whether the palatalisation found in cheese occurred before or after the fronting of /u/ to /y/.

I couldn't give any examples, but considering front rounded vowels tend to actually be more centralised than normal front vowels, it would seem a logical possibility at least.

I think i-umlaut (the process that fronted back vowels before /i/ in the next syllable) already happened in Common West Germanic, but the resulting front vowels were still allophones of the back vowels for a long time (which is the reason why they were not consistently marked in the Old High German orthography, for instance), namely until unstressed vowels were weakened, which created minimal pairs for them. The palatalization of velars before front vowels probably fell within this long time (it also happened in Frisian, but not in Dutch and German).

Well, as i-umlaut was shared between the West Germanic languages, and palatalisation developed later in Old English and Frisian, it shouldn't really matter if front rounded vowels were allophones or not, right? Palatalisation would have taken place in Old English during a time when there were front rounded vowels, and (as I understand it from this discussion, I have no info on this) front rounded vowels did not induce palatalisation. So it would constitute an example for the original question, or so it would seem to me.

[WeepingElf]

Well, as i-umlaut was shared between the West Germanic languages, and palatalisation developed later in Old English and Frisian, it shouldn't really matter if front rounded vowels were allophones or not, right? Palatalisation would have taken place in Old English during a time when there were front rounded vowels, and (as I understand it from this discussion, I have no info on this) front rounded vowels did not induce palatalisation. So it would constitute an example for the original question, or so it would seem to me.

Yes. It may be that the allophonic front rounded vowels in Common West Germanic were only partly fronted - less so, at any rate, than the original front vowels. In German, /ø/ and /y/ are still somewhat less fronted than /e/ and /i/ today, and there is no reason to assume that this difference wasn't there in CWG - rather, that it was greater there. They may still have been [ɵ] and [ʉ] in Proto-Anglo-Frisian, respectively, not fronted enough to palatalize velars.

[Grunnen]

Well, as i-umlaut was shared between the West Germanic languages, and palatalisation developed later in Old English and Frisian, it shouldn't really matter if front rounded vowels were allophones or not, right? Palatalisation would have taken place in Old English during a time when there were front rounded vowels, and (as I understand it from this discussion, I have no info on this) front rounded vowels did not induce palatalisation. So it would constitute an example for the original question, or so it would seem to me.

Yes. It may be that the allophonic front rounded vowels in Common West Germanic were only partly fronted - less so, at any rate, than the original front vowels. In German, /ø/ and /y/ are still somewhat less fronted than /e/ and /i/ today, and there is no reason to assume that this difference wasn't there in CWG - rather, that it was greater there. They may still have been [ɵ] and [ʉ] in Proto-Anglo-Frisian, respectively, not fronted enough to palatalize velars.

My impression is that modern West Frisian actually uses [ʉ] for it's high so called front rounded vowel. Although maybe it's more front than it's Dutch counterpart, I couldn't really say. I don't know how this modern sound relates to the one in the time period we were discussing though.

[Nortaneous]

Well, as i-umlaut was shared between the West Germanic languages, and palatalisation developed later in Old English and Frisian, it shouldn't really matter if front rounded vowels were allophones or not, right? Palatalisation would have taken place in Old English during a time when there were front rounded vowels, and (as I understand it from this discussion, I have no info on this) front rounded vowels did not induce palatalisation. So it would constitute an example for the original question, or so it would seem to me.

Yes. It may be that the allophonic front rounded vowels in Common West Germanic were only partly fronted - less so, at any rate, than the original front vowels. In German, /ø/ and /y/ are still somewhat less fronted than /e/ and /i/ today, and there is no reason to assume that this difference wasn't there in CWG - rather, that it was greater there. They may still have been [ɵ] and [ʉ] in Proto-Anglo-Frisian, respectively, not fronted enough to palatalize velars.

This is common though. Front rounded vowels *usually* aren't as fronted as front unrounded vowels.

[Buran]

Do these sound changes seem reasonable to you, and what do you think of them aesthetically?

Proto-language phonology:
/m n/ <m n>
/pʰ b p' tʰ d t' kʰ g k'/ <p b p' t d t' k g k'>
/s h/ <s h>
/l j w r/ <l y w r>
/e e: o o: a a:/ <e ee o oo a aa>
Phonotactics: (O)(C)V(C)(E), where C = consonant, O = obstruent, E = ejective, V = vowel.

Sound changes:

Stops become voiced unaspirated stops following a creaky-voiced vowel (after an ejective). Ejectives merge with aspirated stops.
Examples:
ˈbeːk'atʰ > ˈbeːk'ad > ˈbeːkʰad
doˈkʰapʰ > doˈkʰapʰ > doˈkʰapʰ
geˈk'epʰ > geˈk'eb > geˈkʰeb
ˈgt'eːp'kʰe > ˈgt'eːbkʰe > ˈgtʰeːbkʰe
k'tʰeːs > k'tʰeːs > kʰtʰeːs
leːsˈk'op' > leːsˈk'pb > leːsˈkʰob
p'akt' > p'agt' > pʰagtʰ
saːbk' > saːbk' > saːbkʰ

Unstressed short /e/ and /o/ are raised to /i/ and /u/ respectively. Unstressed short /a/ is lost (probably becoming [ə] before disappearing entirely). No long vs. short vowel minimal pairs remain; long vowels become short.
Examples:
ˈbeːkʰad > ˈbeːkʰəd > ˈbekʰd
doˈkʰapʰ > duˈkʰapʰ > duˈkʰapʰ
geˈkʰeb > giˈkʰeb > giˈkʰeb
kʰtʰeːs > kʰtʰeːs > kʰtʰes
ˈgtʰeːbkʰe > ˈgtʰeːbkʰi > ˈgtʰebkʰi
leːsˈkʰob > leːsˈkʰob > lesˈkʰob
saːbkʰ > saːbkʰ > sabkʰ

Epenthetic /a/ (probably originally [ɐ], then [a]) is inserted to break up word-initial consonant clusters. Epenthetic /i/ (probably originally [ɨ], then ) is inserted to break up coda stop-consonant clusters.
Examples:
ˈgtʰebkʰi > gɐˈtʰebkʰi > gaˈtʰebkʰi
kʰtʰes > ˈkʰɐtʰes > ˈkʰatʰes
pʰagtʰ > ˈpʰagɨtʰ > ˈpʰagitʰ
sabkʰ > ˈsabɨkʰ > ˈsabikʰ

Stressed /a/ and /o/ are fronted to /æ/ and /ø/ respectively; /a/ shifts to [ɑ], away from /æ/.
Examples:
duˈkʰapʰ > duˈkʰæpʰ
gaˈtʰebkʰi > gɑˈtʰebkʰi
lesˈkʰob > lesˈkʰøb
ˈpʰagitʰ > ˈpʰægitʰ
ˈsabikʰ > ˈsæbikʰ

Velars are palatised to affricates before front unrounded vowels.
Examples:
gɑˈtʰebkʰi > gɑˈtʰebtʃʰi
ˈpʰægitʰ > ˈpʰædʒitʰ

Stress shifts to the final syllable.
Examples:
gɑˈtʰebtʃʰi > gɑtʰebˈtʃʰi
ˈpʰædʒitʰ > pʰæˈdʒitʰ
ˈsæbikʰ > sæˈbikʰ

Daughter language phonology:
/m n/ <m n>
/pʰ b tʰ d kʰ g/ <p b t d k g>
/tʃʰ dʒ/ <č ǧ>
/s h/ <s h>
/l j w r/ <l y w r>
/i u e ø o æ ɑ/ <i u e ŏ o ă a>
Phonotactics: (C)V(K)(O), where C = consonant, K = continuant, O = obstruent, and V = vowel.

Examples of overall change:
béek'at > bečid
gek'ép > ǧičeb
gt'éep'ke > gatebči
hnekt' > hanečit
k'máadk'a > kamădik
leesk'óp' > leskŏb
lák'ad > lăčid
p'akt' > păǧit
prak'ó > parkŏ
st'eeg > sateg

[ObsequiousNewt]

They look reasonable to me, and I may have to borrow those first two.

[----]

What's something interesting I can do to finish off this set of changes?
b d g > β ɦ ɦ /V_V
Nb Nd Ng > m: n: ŋ:
Fb Fd Fg > p t k /#_
Fb Fd Fg > p: t: k: /V_V
b d g > ? ? ?

I want to get rid of voiced stops completely, but I don't want them to change into unvoiced stops again because that's boring.

[R.Rusanov]

delete 'em entirely. nice way to introduce irregularity to your paradigms, and gives you a chance to practice your vowel and diphtong sound changes

[Nortaneous]

m n N

[sangi39]

While nasals causing nasalisation of preceding vowels is well attested diachronically, is it possible for a nasal to cause following vowels to becoming nasalised, e.g. /arma/ > [ar.mã], /uni/ > [u.nĩ], etc.

On a similar note, is it possible for voiceless nasals to become a simple /h/. I know short /m/ in Old Irish became a nasalised [v] and then merged with plain /v/, so I'd assume that voiceless nasals becoming voiceless fricatives isn't wholly implausible, but whether they can become just /h/ I don't.

[Linguist Wannabe]

.
Unstressed short /e/ and /o/ are raised to /i/ and /u/ respectively. Unstressed short /a/ is lost (probably becoming [ə] before disappearing entirely). No long vs. short vowel minimal pairs remain; long vowels become short.
Examples:
ˈbeːkʰad > ˈbeːkʰəd > ˈbekʰd
doˈkʰapʰ > duˈkʰapʰ > duˈkʰapʰ
geˈkʰeb > giˈkʰeb > giˈkʰeb
kʰtʰeːs > kʰtʰeːs > kʰtʰes
ˈgtʰeːbkʰe > ˈgtʰeːbkʰi > ˈgtʰebkʰi
leːsˈkʰob > leːsˈkʰob > lesˈkʰob
saːbkʰ > saːbkʰ > sabkʰ

This generates clusters of mixed voicing (as in your first example /ˈbekʰd/. Also what would happen to a word like /pataˈka/ -> /ptka/?

[ObsequiousNewt]

While nasals causing nasalisation of preceding vowels is well attested diachronically, is it possible for a nasal to cause following vowels to becoming nasalised, e.g. /arma/ > [ar.mã], /uni/ > [u.nĩ], etc.

On a similar note, is it possible for voiceless nasals to become a simple /h/. I know short /m/ in Old Irish became a nasalised [v] and then merged with plain /v/, so I'd assume that voiceless nasals becoming voiceless fricatives isn't wholly implausible, but whether they can become just /h/ I don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debuccalization

I'm not sure that particular example has been attested, but the general rule is "lenition works".