Sound Change Quickie Thread

[احمکي ارش-ھجن]

Soo, if I'm debuccalizing /f/ to /h/, and feel the need to likewise debuccalize /v/ to /ɦ/...what can I do with /ɦ/? Is it plausible for /ɦ/ to simply merge into /h/?

That is entirely plausible.

j > ð > ɹ

I wonder if I can posit that: θ > ɹ and ð > ɹ, or could a language just have /ð/ alone?
I have to make it fit with these lemmas:
bɪ:(?)iq > bɪ:ɹiq > bɪɹiq > biɹiq
de(?)kə: > deɹkə: > deɹk > de̞ɹk
xɑ:(?)ʊm > xɑ:ɹɨm > xɑɹɨm > xaɹim
nɑr > nar > nar > nar
ɣɔ:rok > ɣɔ:rok > ɣɔrok > ɣo̞ro̞k

So a dental fricative (which is lost in descendant) turning into an alveolar approximant may be the best solution.
bɪ:ðiq > bɪ:ɹiq > bɪɹiq > biɹiq
deðkə: > deɹkə: > deɹk > de̞ɹk
xɑ:ðʊm > xɑ:ɹɨm > xɑɹɨm > xaɹim

Secondary question:
Are these sound changes plausible?
lɔħ:a (> lɑ:ħ:a) > lɑ:χ > lɑχ > laχ
tu:ot̰ [t͡su:ot̰] > t͡sotʶ > t͡sotʶ > t͡so̞tʶ
qus [q͡χus] > q͡χos > χos > χo̞s

[Pogostick Man]

Are these sound changes plausible?
lɔħ:a (> lɑ:ħ:a) > lɑ:χ > lɑχ > laχ
tu:ot̰ [t͡su:ot̰] > t͡sotʶ > t͡sotʶ > t͡so̞tʶ
qus [q͡χus] > q͡χos > χos > χo̞s

For the first one I'd expect the [ɑ] not to front. Third one seems OK to me; not sure about the second one—the affrication looks plausible, but is that a creaky-voice diacritic on the /t/?

[احمکي ارش-ھجن]

Are these sound changes plausible?
lɔħ:a (> lɑ:ħ:a) > lɑ:χ > lɑχ > laχ
tu:ot̰ [t͡su:ot̰] > t͡sotʶ > t͡sotʶ > t͡so̞tʶ
qus [q͡χus] > q͡χos > χos > χo̞s

For the first one I'd expect the [ɑ] not to front. Third one seems OK to me; not sure about the second one—the affrication looks plausible, but is that a creaky-voice diacritic on the /t/?

Yes, that is a creaky voiced /t/, which comes from a vowel with a low-tone accent.
tu:tò > tu:ot̰ [t͡su:ot̰] > t͡sotʶ > t͡sotʶ > t͡so̞tʶ

But the /ɑ/ is supposed to front.
In open syllables:
/ɑ:/ > /ɑ:/ > /ɑ/ > /a/
/æ:/ > /ɛ:/ > /ɛ/ > /e/
/ɛ:/ > /ɛ:/ > /ɛ/ > /e/
/ə:/ > /ə:/ > /ə/ > /ə/
/ɔ:/ > /ɔ:/ > /ɔ/ > /o/
/e:/ > /ɪ:/ > /ɪ/ > /i/
/o:/ > /ʊ:/ > /ʊ/ > /u/
/ɪ:/ > /ɪ:/ > /ɪ/ > /i/
/ʊ:/ > /ʊ:/ > /ʊ/ > /u/
/i:/ > /əj/ > /əj/ > /aj/
/u:/ > /əw/ > /əw/ > /aw/

In closed syllables:
/ɑ/ > /a/ > /a/ > /a/
/æ/ > /a/ > /a/ > /a/
/ɛ/ > /ə/ > /ə/ > /ə/
/ə/ > /ə/ > /ə/ > /ə/
/ɔ/ > /ə/ > /ə/ > /ə/
/e/ > /e/ > /e/ > /e/
/o/ > /o/ > /o/ > /o/
/ɪ/ > /ɨ/ > /ɨ/ > /i/
/ʊ/ > /ɨ/ > /ɨ/ > /i/
/i/ > /i/ > /i/ > /i/
/u/ > /u/ > /u/ > /u/

[Zaarin]

Can pharyngealization spread regressively? (It pharyngealizes the vowel, too, but that's allophonic not phonemic in the language in question.)

CVX > CˁVX
ʔVX > ʕVX
hVX > ħVX

X=ħʕCˁ


Also, does /rˁ/ > /ʁ/ look plausible (without backing plain /r/)?

[Nortaneous]

http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/featg ... phasis.pdf

[Zaarin]

http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/featg ... phasis.pdf

Excellent, thank you.

[Daedolon]

How about this one?

tʃ dʒ > t d
ʃ ʒ > s z

If not, what else can I do to get rid of /tʃ, dʒ, ʃ, ʒ/ ?

[Zaarin]

How about this one?

tʃ dʒ > t d
ʃ ʒ > s z

If not, what else can I do to get rid of /tʃ, dʒ, ʃ, ʒ/ ?

Both of those changes are common.

[vokzhen]

Soo, if I'm debuccalizing /f/ to /h/, and feel the need to likewise debuccalize /v/ to /ɦ/...what can I do with /ɦ/? Is it plausible for /ɦ/ to simply merge into /h/?

I don't think there's any need to debuccalize /v/ as well. Especially if /w/ isn't in the inventory, it seems very likely that /v/ instead starts acting as an approximant. It's not uncommon for one of a voiced/voiceless pair to act differently, and off the top of my head it's often a voiced one that acts out from the other pairs. If you're set on it debuccalizing, breathy-voiced vowels is probably the most obvious way to go.

[Pole, the]

I have labial, velar and labio-velar series. Is it possible for a change, e.g. palatalization, to affect the labial and the velar, but not the labio-velar?

[Pogostick Man]

I have labial, velar and labio-velar series. Is it possible for a change, e.g. palatalization, to affect the labial and the velar, but not the labio-velar?

Yes, I believe so. I think that's attested in both changes from PIE and in Romance, right?

[StrangerCoug]

How stable can /a e i y o ɯ u/ be expected to be as a basic vowel system? It's one I like for my conlangs, but don't see attested in its exact form anywhere. (I know Turkish adds /ø/ to it.)

[vokzhen]

Looks like some interpretations of Chuvash have something close, /i y ɯ u e a/ plus two vowels which appear to have once been /ø o/ but are now mostly unrounded, reduced vowels. UPSID lists Highland Chinantec as having /i y ɯ u e a ɵ/, but I can't verify that elsewhere, and it lists Huari with /i y ɨ u e o a/ but Wikipedia has /i y u e ø a/ (plus some nasal vowels). Nganasan, though, has /i y ɨ u e o a/ plus schwa and /ⁱa ^ua/. (Keeping in mind the /ɨ~ɯ/ contrast is often more about interpretation than any real differences between the two.)

At a guess it not being attested is due to the unlikelihood of such a system arising, rather than instability once it does. The usual routes to front-rounded vowels won't work directly to get such a system, and the specific set of changes to get to your inventory might just be complex enough that it's not likely to arise often.

[Nortaneous]

start with a e i o u + ai oi, then e > ɯ, then ai oi > e y

or a e o i ɯ u + ai au, then u o au > y u o + ai > e

[vokzhen]

start with a e i o u + ai oi, then e > ɯ, then ai oi > e y

or a e o i ɯ u + ai au, then u o au > y u o + ai > e

What I was thinking of was /i ɯ e ɤ a/, then labials and labiovelars cause rounding of high vowels, with later or simultaneous ɤ>o just to maximize contrast. Such a system would probably have clear traces, though, as /y u/ and /i ɯ/ would be in complementary distribution at first, and would probably be clearly evidenced for quite a while. Diphthong monophthongization was the other thing I would consider. I'm curious if the change u>y happens with ɯ already present in the system, as it seems like it would interfere due to being "in the way;" it's rounded versus unrounded, but /ɯ/ is acoustically close enough to something like /ʉ/ I'd think /u/ would be likely to stay put.

[احمکي ارش-ھجن]

Are these possible and realistic?
/'ma ʔa'ço̞l 'waɹ/[ma(ʔ)a'ço̞l 'waɹ] > /maʔço̞'luɹ/
/'dle̞m ʔi'ho̞ɹa/[dle̞mi'ho̞ɹa] > /le̞'miɹa/

[Travis B.]

Are these possible and realistic?
/'ma ʔa'ço̞l 'waɹ/[ma(ʔ)a'ço̞l 'waɹ] > /maʔço̞'luɹ/
/'dle̞m ʔi'ho̞ɹa/[dle̞mi'ho̞ɹa] > /le̞'miɹa/

I assume there are intermediate steps rather than simply going from one to the other, right?

(With intermediate steps the first is entirely reasonable. The second is less reasonable but can be made reasonable, because the most direct way of approaching it is basically implausible, since you are eliding a stressed syllable /'ho̞/ where adjacent unstressed /mi/ and /ɹa/ are preserved; to make this plausible would require having a stress shift before the elision takes place, to explain the pattern of elision.)

[احمکي ارش-ھجن]

Are these possible and realistic?
/'ma ʔa'ço̞l 'waɹ/[ma(ʔ)a'ço̞l 'waɹ] > /maʔço̞'luɹ/
/'dle̞m ʔi'ho̞ɹa/[dle̞mi'ho̞ɹa] > /le̞'miɹa/

I assume there are intermediate steps rather than simply going from one to the other, right?

(With intermediate steps the first is entirely reasonable. The second is less reasonable but can be made reasonable, because the most direct way of approaching it is basically implausible, since you are eliding a stressed syllable /'ho̞/ where adjacent unstressed /mi/ and /ɹa/ are preserved; to make this plausible would require having a stress shift before the elision takes place, to explain the pattern of elision.)

Yes, there are intermediate steps:
/'ma ʔa'ço̞l 'waɹ/[ma(ʔ)a'ço̞l 'waɹ] > /maʔço̞l'waɹ/ > /maʔço̞'luɹ/
Stress is ulimate if last syllable is closed, and penultimate is last syllable is open, so stress naturally shifts. Dunno about wa/u/C_C...

The second one should be more like this:
/'dle̞m ʔi'ho̞ɹa/[dle̞mi'ho̞ɹa] > /(d)le̞m'ho̞ɹa/ > /le̞'mo̞ɹa/

[Travis B.]

The second one should be more like this:
/'dle̞m ʔi'ho̞ɹa/[dle̞mi'ho̞ɹa] > /(d)le̞m'ho̞ɹa/ > /le̞'mo̞ɹa/

Yeah, this makes a whole lot more sense than what was there before.

[vokzhen]

[dle̞mi'ho̞ɹa] > [dle̞m'hjo̞ra] > /le̞'miɹa/, where an unstressed, pretonic /i/ (and possibly /u/) in an open syllable metathesizes as a semivowel onto the stressed syllable. The /h/ is deleted however you want, ChR clusters simplifying, Ch clusters simplifying, whatever, and /jo/ > /i/. Those are likely to affect things you weren't anticipating, though.

[Travis B.]

[dle̞mi'ho̞ɹa] > [dle̞m'hjo̞ra] > /le̞'miɹa/, where an unstressed, pretonic /i/ (and possibly /u/) in an open syllable metathesizes as a semivowel onto the stressed syllable. The /h/ is deleted however you want, ChR clusters simplifying, Ch clusters simplifying, whatever, and /jo/ > /i/. Those are likely to affect things you weren't anticipating, though.

That is one way to do it; but of course it is not an obvious way, so it should be specified as individual steps, especially since those particular steps may have significant global consequences by themselves.

Another way to do it would be:

[dle̞mi'ho̞ɹa] > [le̞mi'ho̞ɹa] (consonant cluster reduction) > [le̞mʲi'ho̞ɹa] (regressive palatalization) > [le̞mʲ'ho̞ɹa] (unstressed high vowel elision) > [le̞'mʲo̞ɹa] (onset [h] elision after another consonant) > [le̞'mʲø̞ɹa] (palatal assimilation) > [le̞'mʲyɹa] (rounded front vowel raising) > [le̞'mʲiɹa] (rounded front vowel unrounding) > [le̞'miɹa] (depalatalization)

[احمکي ارش-ھجن]

[dle̞mi'ho̞ɹa] > [dle̞m'hjo̞ra] > /le̞'miɹa/, where an unstressed, pretonic /i/ (and possibly /u/) in an open syllable metathesizes as a semivowel onto the stressed syllable. The /h/ is deleted however you want, ChR clusters simplifying, Ch clusters simplifying, whatever, and /jo/ > /i/. Those are likely to affect things you weren't anticipating, though.

That is one way to do it; but of course it is not an obvious way, so it should be specified as individual steps, especially since those particular steps may have significant global consequences by themselves.

Another way to do it would be:

[dle̞mi'ho̞ɹa] > [le̞mi'ho̞ɹa] (consonant cluster reduction) > [le̞mʲi'ho̞ɹa] (regressive palatalization) > [le̞mʲ'ho̞ɹa] (unstressed high vowel elision) > [le̞'mʲo̞ɹa] (onset [h] elision after another consonant) > [le̞'mʲø̞ɹa] (palatal assimilation) > [le̞'mʲyɹa] (rounded front vowel raising) > [le̞'mʲiɹa] (rounded front vowel unrounding) > [le̞'miɹa] (depalatalization)

Nah, I'll stick with lemora.
Would those have "global consequences"? Would /i/ have to palatalize all preceding consonants in every word?

I have been already wondering if metathesis and elision are on a case-by-case basis or if it is generalized? e.g. zimr > zmir, but zibr > zibr?

[Travis B.]

[dle̞mi'ho̞ɹa] > [dle̞m'hjo̞ra] > /le̞'miɹa/, where an unstressed, pretonic /i/ (and possibly /u/) in an open syllable metathesizes as a semivowel onto the stressed syllable. The /h/ is deleted however you want, ChR clusters simplifying, Ch clusters simplifying, whatever, and /jo/ > /i/. Those are likely to affect things you weren't anticipating, though.

That is one way to do it; but of course it is not an obvious way, so it should be specified as individual steps, especially since those particular steps may have significant global consequences by themselves.

Another way to do it would be:

[dle̞mi'ho̞ɹa] > [le̞mi'ho̞ɹa] (consonant cluster reduction) > [le̞mʲi'ho̞ɹa] (regressive palatalization) > [le̞mʲ'ho̞ɹa] (unstressed high vowel elision) > [le̞'mʲo̞ɹa] (onset [h] elision after another consonant) > [le̞'mʲø̞ɹa] (palatal assimilation) > [le̞'mʲyɹa] (rounded front vowel raising) > [le̞'mʲiɹa] (rounded front vowel unrounding) > [le̞'miɹa] (depalatalization)

Nah, I'll stick with lemora.
Would those have "global consequences"? Would /i/ have to palatalize all preceding consonants in every word?

Pretty much all preceding consonants that are specified as being palatalizable, yes, with palatalizable consonants being, say, all consonants that are not either labialized (as labialized consonants very frequently resist palatalization) or palatal (because palatalization on top of already being palatal is meaningless), with labials (as distinct from labialized consonants) often frequently resisting palatalization as well due to palatalization of labials often being perceived as coarticulation and thus being more likely to be resisted (but as we here are palatalizing /m/, labials would have to be palatalizable).

I have been already wondering if metathesis and elision are on a case-by-case basis or if it is generalized? e.g. zimr > zmir, but zibr > zibr?

Metathesis does often happen on a case-by-case basis, but elision generally occurs due to regular rules.

[احمکي ارش-ھجن]

Does this look diachronically possible?
*yēxī /'jɛ:.xɪ:/['jɛ:xʲɪ:] > /jɛç/ > /jɛç/ > /jeç/
*yēxīib /jɛ:.xɪ:'ib/[jɛ:.xʲɪ:'ib] > /ʔəj'çib/ > /ʔəj'ʝib/ > /ʔa'ʝib/
*yēxīak /jɛ:.xɪ:'ak/[jɛ:.xʲɪ:'ak] > /ʔəj'çik/ > /ʔəj'ʝik/ > /ʔa'ʝik/
*yēxīex /jɛ:.xɪ:'ex/[jɛ:.xʲɪ:'exʲ] > /ʔəj'çiç/ > /ʔəj'ʝiç/ > /ʔa'ʝiç/
*yēxīat /jɛ:.xɪ:'at/[jɛ:.xʲɪ:'at] > /ʔəj'çit/[ʔəj.çit͡θ] > /ʔəj.ʝit/[ʔəj.ʝiθ] > /ʔa.ʝit/[ʔa.ʝiθ]
First, those VC syllables fuse with the previous CV syllable becoming one CiC syllable and stress changes accordingly, then some syncope occurred, and so an epenthetic/liaison /ʔə/ was added. The /t x/ here allophonically palatalize after front vowels.

[CatDoom]

I'm sure somebody has asked this before, but I've had no luck finding it. It's famously rare for palatal or palatalized velar stops to shift to plain velars; I was just curious if anybody knew of any case where this is known or believed to have happened unconditionally.