I see... What if, instead of /ɾ/ or /ɹ/ I had the retroflex flap, /ɽ/? I.e.:finlay wrote:It works... but [l] and [ɹ] there are still in complementary distribution and wouldn't be called phonemes. You would need to find a way to introduce a situation where they contrast, such as making it L in consonant clusters but then dropping the plosive, so tɺ → tl → l or something. This is also plausible. I find that there's very little that's truly implausible if you're jumping from one side of the IPA table to another. You can argue any which way you like. If you need citations it's a bit more tricky but most simple sounding sound changes you can think of have been spied somewhere in the world.
However, some are more likely than others, of course, and if I were you I'd swap L and R round in this case, to get tɺ → tɾ or something, and derive L the other way. if that makes sense.
Nope, it did go all the way to [χ] in some areas e.g. Madrid and Lima.Jetboy wrote:This change doesn't sound too implausible; Spanish had something similar, though it only went to /x/.Nortaneous wrote: ʃʂ
Isn't xRenaçido wrote: Nope, it did go all the way to [χ] in some areas e.g. Madrid and Lima.
χ fairly common, if there aren't uvulars? Or at least x~χ?I just meant I think /tr/ is more common than /tl/; it doesn't really matter what flavour of R you use (but maybe this is english bias).... So your original one was fine, I just think it's more likely to have /tr/ and /la/. (to be clear: by /r/ i mean [r], [ɾ], [ɹ], [ɽ], [ɻ], [ʀ], whatever)cybrxkhan wrote:I see... What if, instead of /ɾ/ or /ɹ/ I had the retroflex flap, /ɽ/? I.e.:finlay wrote:It works... but [l] and [ɹ] there are still in complementary distribution and wouldn't be called phonemes. You would need to find a way to introduce a situation where they contrast, such as making it L in consonant clusters but then dropping the plosive, so tɺ → tl → l or something. This is also plausible. I find that there's very little that's truly implausible if you're jumping from one side of the IPA table to another. You can argue any which way you like. If you need citations it's a bit more tricky but most simple sounding sound changes you can think of have been spied somewhere in the world.
However, some are more likely than others, of course, and if I were you I'd swap L and R round in this case, to get tɺ → tɾ or something, and derive L the other way. if that makes sense.
/ɺ/ --> /l/, if the /ɺ/ was in a consonant cluster with a stop. i.e., /tɺ/ --> /tl/
/ɺ/ --> /l/ if the /ɺ/ is the coda of a syllable. i.e., /taɺ/ --> /tal/, /iɺ/ --> /il/
/ɺ/ --> /ɽ/ in all other situations, i.e. /ɺa/ --> /ɽa/
Or perhaps can I have /ɺ/ --> /l/ along with something like /f/ --> /ɹ/ or some other sort of fricative like /f/? (i.e. moving down the sonority hierarchy)
Would both of these be too rare a type of thing to happen, or are they reasonably plausible?
Thanks for the help, again!
yeah. i've decided i find [χ] easier than [x], anyway. Nortaneous said once that it's common in Scotland to have [χ] in whichever words have it, although I thought I'd picked it up after staying in Holland (where they definitely have [χ]... it was often trilled too).Jetboy wrote:Isn't xRenaçido wrote: Nope, it did go all the way to [χ] in some areas e.g. Madrid and Lima.
Ah, okay. I was just trying to get the /tl/ because I wanted the daughter language to have elements a bit like some Aztec-esque language (Tlatlpaza, Atlcah, Tlateleco, etc. etc.), but I also wanted an /r/ for some reason.finlay wrote: I just meant I think /tr/ is more common than /tl/; it doesn't really matter what flavour of R you use (but maybe this is english bias).... So your original one was fine, I just think it's more likely to have /tr/ and /la/. (to be clear: by /r/ i mean [r], [ɾ], [ɹ], [ɽ], [ɻ], [ʀ], whatever)
Hmm. Or I guess I could just drop R altogether and just have L (i.e., /ɺ/ --> /l/) but no R at all, and have some dialects realize L as R in certain situations or something perhaps due to foreign influence, and let that cause some transliteration errors.finlay wrote:That's more unlikely given that they don't share any features (like place, voicing, manner), but you could do it with an intermediary, for instance f → v → ʋ → ɹ (ɹ → ʋ is happening in some English dialects, so the reverse shouldn't be implausible either). But then the question is whether this messes up more stuff.
I think you should go with your first option, but you'll have to then have tl→l in order to get a contrast between L and R.
/s/ > /z/ > /ɹ/cybrxkhan wrote: /s/ --> /ɹ/
/ɰ/ --> /ɹ/
/w/ --> /ɹ/
Thank again for taking the time to answer my questions.
I suppose so. Now that you mention that, I've never heard a Spanish speaker having [x] for /x/ exclusively, they generally use [h] only, [χ] only, [x] and [h], or [x] and [χ], hmmm... I've heard that in Russian (or the standard at least), the /x/ is really [x] without a uvular allophone, but again, I've only heard of it, no reliable source.Jetboy wrote:Isn't xRenaçido wrote:Nope, it did go all the way to [χ] in some areas e.g. Madrid and Lima.
/k/ plausible as part of a loss of contrastive labialization?Uh, do you think the labialized consonants could develop some sort of u~w offglide? Then the velarization could spread to the t.Nortaneous wrote:Is /t_w/
You could go through something like /t_w/ > /k_w/ > /k/. Seems reasonable enough.Nortaneous wrote:Is /t_w/
How about an onglide? I have VCʷMbwa wrote:Uh, do you think the labialized consonants could develop some sort of u~w offglide? Then the velarization could spread to the t.Nortaneous wrote:Is /t_w/
Vu̯Cʷ Vu̯C. x, since I already have x h, but then I'd need another source of x that wouldn't have the offglide; /qʰ q/, maybe?Code: Select all
pʰ tʰ tʷʰ ʈʂʰ cçʰ kʰ kʷʰ qʰ qʷʰ
p t tʷ s sʷ ʈʂ cç k kʷ q qʷ
pʼ tʼ tʷʼ tsʼ tsʷʼʈʂʼ cçʼ kʼ kʷʼ qʼ qʷʼ
m n nʷ ɲ ŋ ŋʷ
j w Code: Select all
p t k
s x
m n ŋ
r j h
lu̯CNortaneous wrote:How about an onglide? I have VCʷ
ɰC Cˠ (and in this case tˠ k) ?If you're trying to get to the Tharu inventory below... maybe you could have the same progression as above happen to sʷ, except, when it is sˠ, shift to plain s, maybe through ʂ or, or just a plain loss of velarization or something?Nortaneous wrote:Also, what would happen to sʷ? I guess I could have it
Or through bunched R. I know that's only in English, but to me [R] to [r\] is only plausible with bunched R as an middle step.roninbodhisattva wrote:/s/ > /z/ > /ɹ/cybrxkhan wrote: /s/ --> /ɹ/
/ɰ/ --> /ɹ/
/w/ --> /ɹ/
Thank again for taking the time to answer my questions.
/ɰ/ > /ɹ/ (yes)
/w/ > /ɰ/ > /ɹ/
I suppose you might wanna do the velar and /w/ through something like /ʁ/ or /ʀ/, but I don't think that's totally necessary.
Perhaps [g G] + a rhotic, g+ h, just plain g?Nortaneous wrote:clusters to derive prestress /ɣ/ from?