Sound Change Quickie Thread

Substantial postings about constructed languages and constructed worlds in general. Good place to mention your own or evaluate someone else's. Put quick questions in C&C Quickies instead.
User avatar
Nortaneous
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 4544
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
Location: the Imperial Corridor

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Nortaneous »

finlay wrote:Yes. Some people write [ð̞] (cf Danish), but I think this is unnecessary because [ɹ] (or maybe [ɹ̪] if you want to be pedantic) does the job just fine.
except [ð̞] could be dental or interdental, whereas [ɹ̪] has to be dental and [ɹ] is almost always bunched r
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.

User avatar
finlay
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 3600
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:35 pm
Location: Tokyo

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by finlay »

Nortaneous wrote:[ɹ] is almost always bunched r
only in american english, not in the ipa

also the dental diacritic isn't specifically not interdental, there is nothing anywhere that says that. there is an interdental diacritic but only in extipa and only if you really need to be more specific.

User avatar
Risla
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 800
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 12:17 pm
Location: The darkest corner of your mind...

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Risla »

Not quite a sound change, but I'm wondering if the vocalic epenthesis rule (especially for loanwords) I have in South Eresian is naturalistic, since it's somewhat harmonic and the language otherwise lacks vowel harmony. I think it's probably fine, just making sure. It's a height distinction, and the two potential vowels are /a/ and /e/, depending on if the preceding vowel is [-low] or [+low].

So basically, to randomly borrow a few words from Nalchast, a word like [ˈmɑrzdo] would be borrowed as [ˈmɑːɾasto], whereas [nexˈtræld] would be borrowed as [ˈneːketɬaltɑ].

User avatar
Jetboy
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 6:49 pm

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Jetboy »

Two very quick questions:

Firstly, is it realistic to have /f/ and /θ/ become /p/ and /t/, respectively, before /s/?
Secondly, is the change /z/ (> /ɾ/ or /ɹ/ )> /l/ plausible if the language already has /r/ and /l/?
"A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort."
–Herm Albright
Even better than a proto-conlang, it's the *kondn̥ǵʰwéh₂s

CaesarVincens
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 7:26 pm

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by CaesarVincens »

Yes and yes.
/f/ and /θ/ to /p/ and /t/ before /s/ seems very plausible to me - a type of dissimilation perhaps.
/z/ (or even /s/) to /r/ with a merger of existing /r/ is attested, as are mergers of /r/ and /l/.

User avatar
Jetboy
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 6:49 pm

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Jetboy »

CaesarVincens wrote:Yes and yes.
/z/ (or even /s/) to /r/ with a merger of existing /r/ is attested, as are mergers of /r/ and /l/.
Other way around; /z/ would become /l/, possibly by way of a dental/alveolar tap, flap, or approximant, in a language that already had /l/ and a dental/alveolar trill.
"A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort."
–Herm Albright
Even better than a proto-conlang, it's the *kondn̥ǵʰwéh₂s

8Deer
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 12:48 am

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by 8Deer »

Is metathesis a plausible way to get rid of ejective consonants? So that [t'a] becomes [taʔ]?

Astraios
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 2974
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:38 am
Location: Israel

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Astraios »

8Deer wrote:Is metathesis a plausible way to get rid of ejective consonants? So that [t'a] becomes [taʔ]?
Doesn't sound likely to me, especially not in an open syllable. Ejectives are so very stuck-together that they aren't really clusters, they're coarticulated.

User avatar
finlay
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 3600
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:35 pm
Location: Tokyo

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by finlay »

[tʼ] and [tʔ] aren't the same thing, not really. I'd say what you're more likely to have is the ejectives becoming another kind of plosive, although i've heard tell that it could be anything of plain, voiced or aspirated that it would end up as.

In my conlangs I got rid of them by merging them with the plain plosives.

8Deer
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 122
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 12:48 am

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by 8Deer »

Doesn't sound likely to me, especially not in an open syllable. Ejectives are so very stuck-together that they aren't really clusters, they're coarticulated.
[tʼ] and [tʔ] aren't the same thing, not really. I'd say what you're more likely to have is the ejectives becoming another kind of plosive, although i've heard tell that it could be anything of plain, voiced or aspirated that it would end up as.
Ok, thanks. I was just trying to think of something interesting to do with them. I remember reading about Ket qiʔy and Athabaskan q'ey, both meaning birch bark, and thought I would go with that.

User avatar
Thomas Winwood
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 105
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 7:47 am
Contact:

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Thomas Winwood »

cybrxkhan wrote:If a language has ejectives, and somehow loses them, what would the ejectives usually turn into?

Thanks in advance.
Implosives or modal voiced consonants are both possible, as are just plain voiceless.

Cedh
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:30 am
Location: Tübingen, Germany
Contact:

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Cedh »

8Deer wrote:Is metathesis a plausible way to get rid of ejective consonants? So that [t'a] becomes [taʔ]?
I could actually see this happening via creaky-voiced vowels at an intermediate stage, i.e. [t'a] > [ta̰] > [taʔ].

(My own conlang Tmaśareʔ does something similar for aspiration, with [tʰa] > [tḁ] > [tah] before voiceless consonants.)

User avatar
Risla
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 800
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 12:17 pm
Location: The darkest corner of your mind...

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Risla »

I would think it would be possible for [tʼ] to become [tʔ], and then have an epenthetic vowel inserted.

sirdanilot
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:47 pm
Location: Leiden, the Netherlands

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by sirdanilot »

Nortaneous wrote:
finlay wrote:Yes. Some people write [ð̞] (cf Danish), but I think this is unnecessary because [ɹ] (or maybe [ɹ̪] if you want to be pedantic) does the job just fine.
except [ð̞] could be dental or interdental, whereas [ɹ̪] has to be dental and [ɹ] is almost always bunched r
How can you even pronounce that sound? And I am not too sure what exactly is meant by a 'bunched r': as far as I know, it's just an [ɹ] (though admittedly, English [ɹ] is different from the [ɹ] that is found in some dialects of Dutch, such as Leids, an urban Southern Hollandic dialect spoken in and around Leiden; these sound like something is happening with the palate as well)

As for the ejectives; a simple merger to produce plain voiceless stops seems the most plausible. It depends on what else you have. A system with voiced, voiceless and ejective stops is quite stable, I think; perhaps ejective -> aspirated is a way out. If you don't have voiced stops, you can make the voiceless ones voiced and the ejective ones voiceless.

Glottalization also seems to have to do something with stress; perhaps you can get rid of ejective stops when they become unstressed due to some morphological process. For example, if you have stress word-initially, but a prefix gets tacked on a word, the ejective stop becomes plain.

User avatar
finlay
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 3600
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:35 pm
Location: Tokyo

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by finlay »

Bunched R is an R with secondary accompaniments, like velarisation or pharyngealisation. Many who have it don't have (strong) alveolar contact here, either. It's more common in America. In English [ɹ] is used as a shorthand because people are inconsistent in their use of one form or the other and the exact configuration of the tongue is often a bit nebulous and difficult to notate with a discrete system like the IPA. However, that absolutely does not preclude it from being used as an alveolar or dental approximant without secondary accompaniments, which is what Nortaneous is implying – although yes, it is infelicitous to L1-English learners who will pronounce it like their /r/ which is almost never a true [ɹ].

On that note, I've met about one person ever with a true [ɹ]; I have [ɻʷ] most often, most Brits have some form of [ɹʷ] or [ɻʷ], and Americans are more likely to have bunched R. Some Scots have [ɾ] and [r], and many English now have [ʋ].

There's also something to do with rhotics, which is the most nebulous phonetic category ever and difficult to define, but sometimes includes a lowered F3, if you know what that means – the secondary accompaniments often exaggerate this, which is why they come about. An [ɹ] without them might not have them. [ð̞] emphasises that it doesn't have these and therefore isn't an "R Sound". But as I say the category of "R Sounds" or rhotics is a bit nebulous and is often based on spelling and history instead of phonetics – like, American [ɾ] isn't a rhotic because it's actually /d/ or /t/.

The Holland [ɹ], IIRC, isn't quite "[ɹ]", strictly speaking either, because as you say it involves something with the palate. I think this counts as bunched R, but it's different from the American one. [ɹ] is certainly adequate for writing it phonetically, though.

User avatar
Mbwa
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Mbwa »

I've got a vowel shift, but in order to preserve the inventory I want, the order needs to be kinda weird.

The starting inventory is /a e i o u a: e: i: o: u:/, with this vowel shift:

i: u: > ai au
e o > { a
e: o: > i u
i u > e o
a: a > a @

to end up with /a { e i o u @ ai au/. The order of changes seems to be a little weird to me. We have breaking of long high vowels, lowering of mid short vowels, then raising of mid long vowels before the short high vowels lower (what happens to /a: a/ doesn't really matter). Is that weird?
p_>-ts_>k_>-k_>k_>-pSSSSS

User avatar
Nortaneous
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 4544
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
Location: the Imperial Corridor

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Nortaneous »

finlay wrote:In English [ɹ] is used as a shorthand because people are inconsistent in their use of one form or the other and the exact configuration of the tongue is often a bit nebulous and difficult to notate with a discrete system like the IPA. However, that absolutely does not preclude it from being used as an alveolar or dental approximant without secondary accompaniments, which is what Nortaneous is implying – although yes, it is infelicitous to L1-English learners who will pronounce it like their /r/ which is almost never a true [ɹ].
Except nobody uses IPA exactly as it's set out; how many people use <a> for a front vowel, as opposed to a central one?

Also, canIPA uses <ɹ> for bunched R, and some sort of odd 2-shaped thing for a true alveolar approximant.
The Holland [ɹ], IIRC, isn't quite "[ɹ]", strictly speaking either, because as you say it involves something with the palate. I think this counts as bunched R, but it's different from the American one.
Sound samples? That's probably postpalatal R (sounds like [ɨ̯]; listen to some Fionn Regan songs for examples), which is also pretty common in America. (I wonder if there's a pattern to the variation between pharyngeal (bunched) and postpalatal R in AE. Seems like bunched R is associated with the South and Midwest (I've seen it called "Texas R" once), whereas postpalatal R shows up more in the Northeast, especially among younger females.
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.

User avatar
finlay
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 3600
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:35 pm
Location: Tokyo

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by finlay »

lol, i wouldn't use canipa to support your argument, since i think it's bullshit.... :P

Cedh
Sanno
Sanno
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:30 am
Location: Tübingen, Germany
Contact:

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Cedh »

Mbwa wrote:I've got a vowel shift, but in order to preserve the inventory I want, the order needs to be kinda weird.

The starting inventory is /a e i o u a: e: i: o: u:/, with this vowel shift:

i: u: > ai au
e o > { a
e: o: > i u
i u > e o
a: a > a @

to end up with /a { e i o u @ ai au/. The order of changes seems to be a little weird to me. We have breaking of long high vowels, lowering of mid short vowels, then raising of mid long vowels before the short high vowels lower (what happens to /a: a/ doesn't really matter). Is that weird?
It's not all that weird. Short vowels get lowered, long vowels get raised, basically. What you should keep in mind though is that with the order you've listed, [e: o:] actually become [e o], merging with original short , and that original short [o] ends up as [ə], merging with short [a].

If you want to keep these separate, I'd list the changes as follows:
[i: u:] > [ai au]
[e: o:] > [i: u:]
> [e o æ a ə]
[i: u: a:] >

sirdanilot
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:47 pm
Location: Leiden, the Netherlands

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by sirdanilot »

A sample of Leiden Dutch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQUH4di3OOU . Leids is the only Dutch dialect in which every /r/ is realized as [ɹ]; most other Holland dialects only have it in coda, or not at all.

I haven't heard this kind of [ɹ] in any dialect of English, I think.

User avatar
Tropylium⁺
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 4:21 pm
Location: Finland

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Tropylium⁺ »

8Deer wrote:
Doesn't sound likely to me, especially not in an open syllable. Ejectives are so very stuck-together that they aren't really clusters, they're coarticulated.
[tʼ] and [tʔ] aren't the same thing, not really. I'd say what you're more likely to have is the ejectives becoming another kind of plosive, although i've heard tell that it could be anything of plain, voiced or aspirated that it would end up as.
Ok, thanks. I was just trying to think of something interesting to do with them. I remember reading about Ket qiʔy and Athabaskan q'ey, both meaning birch bark, and thought I would go with that.
IIRC Vajda analyses Ket /ʔ/ as having a prosodic origin (low tone in original open syllables or something along those lines).
Not actually new.

User avatar
Qwynegold
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1606
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 11:34 pm
Location: Stockholm

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Qwynegold »

sirdanilot wrote:A sample of Leiden Dutch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQUH4di3OOU .
It sounds like he's imitating American English.

I have question. I haven't been thinking about having this in any particular conlang, I'm just curious to know. Could voiceless consonants of those types that are rare in the world, like [r_0 n_0 j_0] and whatever, turn into breathy voiced consonants? I was trying to pronunce these things but it's so damn hard. Sometimes it seems to be become breathy or something for me.
Image
My most recent quiz:
Eurovision Song Contest 2018

User avatar
finlay
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 3600
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:35 pm
Location: Tokyo

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by finlay »

sirdanilot wrote:A sample of Leiden Dutch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQUH4di3OOU . Leids is the only Dutch dialect in which every /r/ is realized as [ɹ]; most other Holland dialects only have it in coda, or not at all.

I haven't heard this kind of [ɹ] in any dialect of English, I think.
I wouldn't be particularly surprised to hear it in English, actually. I can't think if I specifically know of a place or accent which would actually include it, though, it just wouldn't necessarily sound out of place... It does kind of sound American to me too.

I'm starting to wonder if it's in my idiolect, but there's too much observers' bias at this point.... so, I doubt it. :P

Leiden is a nice town, incidentally.

sirdanilot
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:47 pm
Location: Leiden, the Netherlands

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by sirdanilot »

Qwynegold wrote:
sirdanilot wrote:A sample of Leiden Dutch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQUH4di3OOU .
It sounds like he's imitating American English.

I have question. I haven't been thinking about having this in any particular conlang, I'm just curious to know. Could voiceless consonants of those types that are rare in the world, like [r_0 n_0 j_0] and whatever, turn into breathy voiced consonants? I was trying to pronunce these things but it's so damn hard. Sometimes it seems to be become breathy or something for me.
He isn't, this is the authentic Leids. Other than the weird /r/, many of its features are typical for Southern Hollandic city dialects. Nowadays, Leids is mostly spoken by people from the lower social classes and of course older people, a process happening to many dialects in the Netherlands.

I think voiceless nasals are reasonably stable, and don't really sound breathy. The only thing that's unstable about them is that it's hard to differentiate between various voiceless nasals. Welsh even has voiceless nasals as the product of assimilation in certain positions.

/j_0/, other than it being hard to explain how it would appear in any phonology in the first place, sounds like it could easily undergo fortition to /ç/. That leaves only [r_0] as likely to produce breathy voicing.

Astraios
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 2974
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:38 am
Location: Israel

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Astraios »

finlay wrote:I wouldn't be particularly surprised to hear it in English, actually. I can't think if I specifically know of a place or accent which would actually include it, though, it just wouldn't necessarily sound out of place... It does kind of sound American to me too.
My first thought was Cornish. West Country-ish.

Post Reply