except [ð̞] could be dental or interdental, whereas [ɹ̪] has to be dental and [ɹ] is almost always bunched rfinlay 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.
Sound Change Quickie Thread
- Nortaneous
- Sumerul
- Posts: 4544
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
- Location: the Imperial Corridor
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
only in american english, not in the ipaNortaneous wrote:[ɹ] is almost always bunched r
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.
- Risla
- Avisaru
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 12:17 pm
- Location: The darkest corner of your mind...
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
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].
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].
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
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/?
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
–Herm Albright
Even better than a proto-conlang, it's the *kondn̥ǵʰwéh₂s
-
- Lebom
- Posts: 204
- Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 7:26 pm
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
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/.
/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/.
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
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.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/.
"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
–Herm Albright
Even better than a proto-conlang, it's the *kondn̥ǵʰwéh₂s
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
Is metathesis a plausible way to get rid of ejective consonants? So that [t'a] becomes [taʔ]?
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
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.8Deer wrote:Is metathesis a plausible way to get rid of ejective consonants? So that [t'a] becomes [taʔ]?
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
[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.
In my conlangs I got rid of them by merging them with the plain plosives.
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
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.
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.[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.
- Thomas Winwood
- Lebom
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 7:47 am
- Contact:
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
Implosives or modal voiced consonants are both possible, as are just plain voiceless.cybrxkhan wrote:If a language has ejectives, and somehow loses them, what would the ejectives usually turn into?
Thanks in advance.
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
I could actually see this happening via creaky-voiced vowels at an intermediate stage, i.e. [t'a] > [ta̰] > [taʔ].8Deer wrote:Is metathesis a plausible way to get rid of ejective consonants? So that [t'a] becomes [taʔ]?
(My own conlang Tmaśareʔ does something similar for aspiration, with [tʰa] > [tḁ] > [tah] before voiceless consonants.)
Blog: audmanh.wordpress.com
Conlangs: Ronc Tyu | Buruya Nzaysa | Doayâu | Tmaśareʔ
Conlangs: Ronc Tyu | Buruya Nzaysa | Doayâu | Tmaśareʔ
- Risla
- Avisaru
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 12:17 pm
- Location: The darkest corner of your mind...
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
I would think it would be possible for [tʼ] to become [tʔ], and then have an epenthetic vowel inserted.
-
- Avisaru
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:47 pm
- Location: Leiden, the Netherlands
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
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)Nortaneous wrote:except [ð̞] could be dental or interdental, whereas [ɹ̪] has to be dental and [ɹ] is almost always bunched rfinlay 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.
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.
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
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.
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.
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
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?
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
- Nortaneous
- Sumerul
- Posts: 4544
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
- Location: the Imperial Corridor
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
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?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].
Also, canIPA uses <ɹ> for bunched R, and some sort of odd 2-shaped thing for a true alveolar approximant.
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.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.
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
lol, i wouldn't use canipa to support your argument, since i think it's bullshit....
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
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].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?
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:] >
Blog: audmanh.wordpress.com
Conlangs: Ronc Tyu | Buruya Nzaysa | Doayâu | Tmaśareʔ
Conlangs: Ronc Tyu | Buruya Nzaysa | Doayâu | Tmaśareʔ
-
- Avisaru
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:47 pm
- Location: Leiden, the Netherlands
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
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 haven't heard this kind of [ɹ] in any dialect of English, I think.
- Tropylium⁺
- Lebom
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 4:21 pm
- Location: Finland
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
IIRC Vajda analyses Ket /ʔ/ as having a prosodic origin (low tone in original open syllables or something along those lines).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.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.[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.
Not actually new.
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
It sounds like he's imitating American English.sirdanilot wrote:A sample of Leiden Dutch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQUH4di3OOU .
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.
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
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.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'm starting to wonder if it's in my idiolect, but there's too much observers' bias at this point.... so, I doubt it.
Leiden is a nice town, incidentally.
-
- Avisaru
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:47 pm
- Location: Leiden, the Netherlands
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
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.Qwynegold wrote:It sounds like he's imitating American English.sirdanilot wrote:A sample of Leiden Dutch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQUH4di3OOU .
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.
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.
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
My first thought was Cornish. West Country-ish.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.