zompist bboard

There are Papuan languages with unconditional k > q -- the gap isn't filled and no other velars uvularize, so their stop systems are /p t q b d g/.

How are these sound changes?
F = front(ed) vowel
B = back(ed) vowel
L = lowered vowel
U = uvular(ized) consonant

Hīmōšīkā
/æ æ: ɑ ɑ: ɛ ɛ: e e: ɪ ɪ: i i: ə ə: ɔ ɔ: o o: ʊ ʊ: u u:/ (long in open syllables, short in closed syllables)
/m n ŋ/
/p p̰ b t t̰ d k k̰ g q̰ ʡ ʔ/
/f s z x ɣ ħ h/
/w r r̰ j/
/l ɬ/

Hīmōšīkā to Takśāikā (incomplete)
æː/ɛː/[open syllable]
ɑ/a/[closed syllable]
eː,iː,oː,uː/ɪː,əj,ʊː,əw/[open syllable]
æ,ɛ,ɪ,ɔ,ʊ/a,ə,ɨ,ə,ɨ/[closed syllable]
t/t͡s/_(u,ʊ)
k,g/c,ɟ/_(i,ɪ)
x,ɣ/ç,ʝ/_(i,ɪ)
q/q͡χ/_(u,ʊ)
ɣ/g/#_Vx
ʔp,ʔt,ʔk,ʔq/p,t,k,q/
ʡp,ʡt,ʡk,ʡq,ʡ/Lp,Lt,Lk,Lq,Lʔ/
hp,ht,hk,hq,hː/Vːʰp,Vːʰt,Vːʰk,Vːʰq,Vːh/
ħp,ħt,ħk,ħq,ħː/Lːp,Lːt,Lːk,Lːq,Lːχ/
p̰,t̰,k̰,q̰,r̰/pʶ,tʶ,kʶ,qʶ,rʶ/

Takśāikā to Proto-Vrkhazhian
Vː/V/
wː,jː/β,ʝ/
pf,bf/p͡ɸ,b͡β/
f,p͡ɸ,b͡β/p,p,b/m_
k,g/x,ɣ/_N
Lp,Lt,Lk,Lq,Lʔ/p,t,k,q,ʔ/
Vːʰp,Vːʰt,Vːʰk,Vːʰq,Vːh/ʰp,ʰt,ʰk,ʰq,h/
Lːp,Lːt,Lːk,Lːq,Lːχ/p,t,k,q,χ/
V/B/#uC_ (progressive u-mutation)
V/F/_Ce# (regressive e-mutation)
V/0/_'C (before any stressed syllable)

Proto-Vrkhazhian to Classical Vrkhazhian
ɑ,ɛ/a,e/
ɪ,əj,ʊ,əw/i,aj,u,aw/
ɨ/i/
p͡ɸ,b͡β/ɸ,β/
ɬ/ʎ̝̊/_F
θ,ð/ɹ/V_V
CV/VC/#(q,ʔ)_
ŋ/ɴ/_B
i,u/e,o/U_

Classical Vrkhazhian to Uzerian Vrkhazhian (incomplete)
aj,aw/ae̯,ao̯/_C or _#
kʶ,qʶ,rʶ/q,χ,ʀ

Classical Vrkhazhian to Mukhebic Vrkhazhian (also incomplete)
aj,aw/ae̯,ao̯/_C or _#

Proto-Vrkhazhian to Eḏuanik
a/a/
e,ə/e/
i,ɨ/i/
o/o/
u/u/
ɑː/aː/
ɛː,əː,əj/eː/
ɪː/iː/
ɔː,əw/oː/
ʊː/uː/
/pʶ/ > /pˠ/ > [ɣp] > /ɣʷ/
/tʶ/ > /tˠ/ > /θʷ/
/kʶ/ > /kˠ/ > /xʷ/
/qʶ/ > /qˠ/ > /χʷ/
/rʶ/ > /rˠ/ > /rʷ/
p͡ɸ,b͡β/f,v/
t͡s/> /t͡ʃ/ > /t͡ɬ/
c,ɟ/t͡s,d͡z/
ʰp,ʰt/f,t͡s/
ʝ/j/
ç/h/_B
h/ç/_F
Vʰk/Vːk/_#
Vʰq/Vːq/_#
k,g,q/kʷ,gʷ,qʷ/w_#
k,g,q/kʷ,gʷ,qʷ/_w
k,g,q/kʷ,gʷ,qʷ/_BV
ɬ,t͡ɬ,θ,ð,x,ɣ,χ/ɬʷ,t͡ɬʷ,θʷ,ðʷ,xʷ,ɣʷ,χʷ/w_#
ɬ,t͡ɬ,θ,ð,x,ɣ,χ/ɬʷ,t͡ɬʷ,θʷ,ðʷ,xʷ,ɣʷ,χʷ/_w
ɬ,t͡ɬ,θ,ð,x,ɣ,χ/ɬʷ,t͡ɬʷ,θʷ,ðʷ,xʷ,ɣʷ,χʷ/_BV
ŋ/ŋʷ/w_#
ŋ/ŋʷ/_w
ŋ/ŋʷ/_BV

‮suoenatroN wrote:There are Papuan languages with unconditional k > q -- the gap isn't filled and no other velars uvularize, so their stop systems are /p t q b d g/.

Is this supposed to be an answer to my earlier question (on the previous page)..?

How powerful is analogy? If most, but not all, two-syllable verbs have stress on the last syllable, and most, but not all, two-syllable nouns have stress on the first syllable, would it be possible for words with the 'wrong' pattern to change to the other one, or for this stress shift to be productive to form verbs from nouns (or vice-versa)? Now, what some formerly two-syllable roots are actually one-syllable, since the unstressed vowel disappeared (e.g. /tɨˈlo/ > /ˈtlo/). These would be identical to one-syllable roots with a consonant cluster at the beginning (e.g. /ˈksa/ > /ˈksa/). Could analogy apply to these monosyllabic roots, producing /ˈkɨza/ from /ˈksa/, even though there was never a /ɨ/ in the root?

zyxw59 wrote:How powerful is analogy? If most, but not all, two-syllable verbs have stress on the last syllable, and most, but not all, two-syllable nouns have stress on the first syllable, would it be possible for words with the 'wrong' pattern to change to the other one, or for this stress shift to be productive to form verbs from nouns (or vice-versa)? Now, what some formerly two-syllable roots are actually one-syllable, since the unstressed vowel disappeared (e.g. /tɨˈlo/ > /ˈtlo/). These would be identical to one-syllable roots with a consonant cluster at the beginning (e.g. /ˈksa/ > /ˈksa/). Could analogy apply to these monosyllabic roots, producing /ˈkɨza/ from /ˈksa/, even though there was never a /ɨ/ in the root?

That definitely sounds plausible. That's essentially how the biconsonantal and triconsonantal languages of the Afro-Asiatic family developed, through massive and thoroughgoing use of analogy. That's also a bit of back-formation, which is also very common.

sangi39 wrote: IIRC, /ð/ may have become /ɣ/ at some point in the history of Irish Gaelic before becoming /j/ when slender. I wonder, then if /θ/ could similarly shift to /x/. /ð/ can also become /r/ and /θ/ can become /h/.

Would /ðə/ > /ɣə/ > /ɰə/ > /u/ be plausible?

WeepingElf wrote:

zyxw59 wrote:Is /ph th kh/ > /pf ts kx/ > /f ts k/ plausible?

Yes. The first step essentially happened in southern German dialects (the "Proto-German" voiceless stops probably were aspirated); /pf/ > /f/ is currently happening in German (school teachers are fighting an uphill battle against it, saying things like Es heißt 'Pferd', nicht 'Ferd'), and /kx/ > /k/ has happened in many of those dialects which once had /kx/.

This was actually the inspiration for an important consonant shift in Future English!

Is there a semivowel counterpart to /ɨ/?

Yes, but it's rare.

TaylorS wrote:

sangi39 wrote: IIRC, /ð/ may have become /ɣ/ at some point in the history of Irish Gaelic before becoming /j/ when slender. I wonder, then if /θ/ could similarly shift to /x/. /ð/ can also become /r/ and /θ/ can become /h/.

Would /ðə/ > /ɣə/ > /ɰə/ > /u/ be plausible?

I'm not sure how often ɰ/ɣ spontaneously round, but I'd say so.

StrangerCoug wrote:Is there a semivowel counterpart to /ɨ/?

Kinda depends on how you treat /ɨ/. In a lot of languages, there's a vowel between [ɨ ~ ɯ] (e.g. Vietnamese and European Portuguese have /ɨ/ of about the same backness as Turkish and Thai /ɯ/). With some frequency there's a /ɰ/ that can be paired with it, though I don't know if in such cases /ɨ ɰ/ alternate in hiatus the way /i j/ and /u w/ often do. There's a tiny handful that actually have a central semivowel, Tupi and Mapuche off the top of my head.

Is the condition ɾ/ɹ/V_V possible? ɾ/ɹ/_C?

StrangerCoug wrote:Is there a semivowel counterpart to /ɨ/?

It occurs in the languages of Tanna (it's usually transcribed as <v>)

احمکي ارش-ھجن wrote:Is the condition ɾ/ɹ/V_V possible? ɾ/ɹ/_C?

ɾ/ɹ/V_V seems less likely to me, but ɾ/ɹ/_C is reasonably common. It happens (I believe) in some dialects of Aramaic, for example.

Zaarin wrote:

احمکي ارش-ھجن wrote:Is the condition ɾ/ɹ/V_V possible? ɾ/ɹ/_C?

ɾ/ɹ/V_V seems less likely to me, but ɾ/ɹ/_C is reasonably common. It happens (I believe) in some dialects of Aramaic, for example.

Maybe it is unlikely, but for why? Is this not lenition?

احمکي ارش-ھجن wrote:

Zaarin wrote:

احمکي ارش-ھجن wrote:Is the condition ɾ/ɹ/V_V possible? ɾ/ɹ/_C?

ɾ/ɹ/V_V seems less likely to me, but ɾ/ɹ/_C is reasonably common. It happens (I believe) in some dialects of Aramaic, for example.

Maybe it is unlikely, but for why? Is this not lenition?

Not sure specifically why, but I know a number of languages have [ɾ] initially and between vowels and [ɹ] next to consonants.

/4/ doesn't like being adjacent to consonants for obvious physical reasons.

I've got two diphthongs, /aɪ̯/ & /eɪ̯/. I want to have them undergo monphthongization. Probably to /a/ & /e/ respectively. However, before that happens, I was hoping that they might affect surrounding sounds. Are there any common changes that happen to surrounding consonants when diphthongs undergo monphthongization? One I can imagine (but don't want to use) is /aɪ̯/ causing palatalization on adjacent consonants, or even becoming /aj/.

I'm having trouble finding anything on the genesis of triphthongs.so, two questions:
1) Can someone give me a short, simple overview of how triphthongs are generated?
2) With a inventory of /i a u/ for short pure vowels, /i: a: u:/ for long ones, /w j/ for semivowels, and /iw iu aj ai au aw uj/ for diphthongs, what are some likely sound changes resulting in triphthongs?

Daistallia wrote:I'm having trouble finding anything on the genesis of triphthongs.so, two questions:
1) Can someone give me a short, simple overview of how triphthongs are generated?

1a) Through contraction of several adjacent syllables into one.
1b) Through vowel breaking in certain positions.
1c) Through vocalization of consonants or reanalysis of semivowels in certain positions.

2) With a inventory of /i a u/ for short pure vowels, /i: a: u:/ for long ones, /w j/ for semivowels, and /iw iu aj ai au aw uj/ for diphthongs, what are some likely sound changes resulting in triphthongs?

2a) Deletion of unstressed short vowels before /w j/ when followed by a stressed diphthong, e.g. */naˈjaw/ > /ni̯au̯/.
2b) Breaking of long vowels after complex onsets ending in one of /w j/, e.g. */kwiː/ > /ku̯ai̯/.
2c) Vocalization of /r l/ to [j w] when not word-initial or intervocalic, e.g. */praj/ > /pi̯ai̯/ or */twal/ > /tu̯au̯/.

Hmm?????? I would think any three vowel language would have triphthongs already. But otherwise, I'd say soften all of your intervocalic voiced stops to fricatives, and then to approximants, and then to nothing. Possibly with infection of the preceding vowel if ytou prefer. e.g. /av/ > /u/, /až/ > /i/. Becuase /a/ doesnt like being an onset.

Excellent - thanks both of you.

How about this?

Q = Velar or uvular

Qo Qu > Qʷɤ Qʷɯ

I find it a little suspect—I'm not expecting the vowel to unround. The reverse would be fine by me, though.

Cheshirization of that sort is possible, yes. Most commonly this turns a more marked type of vowel into a less marked one (e.g. Cy > Cʲu or Cʷi) but it could happen otherwise as well. A very similar change *oːK > *ɤːKʷ is known from Mansi.

I have an idea for a sound change occuring in three alternative environments - that is, I'm going to pick only one of them, hence I don't write them as one sound change under three conditions.

n → ŋ → ŋk / _ʃ
n → ŋ → ŋk / _ʂ
n → ŋ → ŋk / _x

I wonder: was any of these changes attested?

Only the last one really seems plausible to me. It's place assimilation and epenthesis of a stop at the same place as both consonants.