Sound Change Quickie Thread

[finlay]

Does it?

[Herr Dunkel]

Yes, finlay, it does =/

[finlay]

Are you sure it's not just that hardly any languages have both, and the ones that do tend to get classified as having /ai/?

It doesn't really matter all that much unless they're contrastive, after all. As jmcd mentioned, in hardly any English accent is the diphthong actually [ai]; usually the end point is a bit more open (and after all, mouths aren't discrete; they're made of flappy meat) and is usually written [aɪ] in RP for instance. In some it's written as [ae] as the normal way of doing it. It's all a bit moot in the end.

[Herr Dunkel]

It's still in slashes. It's convenient to use the /aɪ/~/ai/ diphthong instead of overspecifying it since English is far too diverse.

Though, lazy mouths cause a shitf of ai > ae.

[finlay]

It's no more lazy mouth than any other example of sound change. It's more that the exact phonetic value of vowels often varies a lot by dialect or other things like that. It may just be lower in one accent as opposed to another.

[Herr Dunkel]

No, it's because of the black Estonian Jews

[Melteor]

How weird is it to round vowels in open syllables? I think I'm doing this with some that I try speaking, so ideas thinking of whether I should fight this or run with it.

[Herr Dunkel]

Finnish does it all the time.
Example: <nyytti> = /ny:.t:i/


If you mean that vowels round in open syllables, I seriously doubt it without a trigger.

[Melteor]

It happens with mostly checked vowels from English, but I can do it to vowels like /i/.

[Herr Dunkel]

It cannot physically happen to checked vowels.
You know why? Because vowels that occur in closed syllables and not in open syllables don't occur in open syllables.

[Melteor]

It cannot physically happen to checked vowels.
You know why? Because vowels that occur in closed syllables and not in open syllables don't occur in open syllables.

'pi' /pI/ [pY]
I can control whether it happens across word boundaries.
"pi pi" [pI.pY]
When I said checked vowels I meant vowels that are checked in English, um.

[----]

You could have 0 > w after back vowels in open syllables, and then have diphthongs simplify, so you end up with a > ɔ or something

[Moanaka]

You could have 0 > w after back vowels in open syllables, and then have diphthongs simplify, so you end up with a > ɔ or something

Just gave me this idea, but I dunno how wacked it is:

V > V: / in open syllables, V: > V@, then develop a rounded schwa then go from there.

[Nate]

Not exactly a quickie, but I'd appreciate it if someone helped me with this.

I'd like to know if these sound changes for these plosives would work together. Some are obvious that they'll work, but others I'm not too sure. The parent language is called Proto-Anrulin, and the three daughter languages are unnamed so far, so I've called them A, B, and C.

Proto-Anrulin → A B C

*p → f p p /_
*p → f p u /V_% (the % is syllable boundary, right? I'd really like a better explanation of sound change notation...)
*p → f p ∅ /u_%
*p → p b ∅ /V_N%
*b → p b b /_
*b → p b v /V_%
*p' → b pː w /_
*p' → bə pe u /#_C
*p' → b p p /_#

*k → h k k /_
*k → h k ç /[+V +front]_%
*k → h k x /[+V +back]_%
*g → k g g /_
*g → k g ʁ /V_%
*k' → g kː j /_
*k' → gə ke i /#_V
*k' → g k k /_#

*t → s t t /_
*t → s t s /V_%
*t → s t ∅ /V_N%
*d → t d d /_
*d → t d z /V_%
*t' → d tː h /_
*t' → də te a /#_C
*t' → d t t /_#

[Qwynegold]

*p → f p u /V_% (the % is syllable boundary, right? I'd really like a better explanation of sound change notation...)

I though it was $ but I'm not completely sure. :/

*p' → b pː w /_

I don't understand the thought behind turning voiceless plosives into approximants. :/

*k' → gə ke i /#_V

Surely you meant #_C?

*t → s t t /_
*t → s t s /V_%
*t → s t ∅ /V_N%

Oh right, and about these things. I think SCs should come in chronological order. So you should state the *t → s t t /_ line last, because otherwise there's no *t left for the following two SCs.

*t' → d tː h /_

/h/? What?

Show us some sample words and how they'd evolve. It would be interesting to see the sound correspondences between the three languages. B seems conservative.

[Whimemsz]

*p → f p u /V_% (the % is syllable boundary, right? I'd really like a better explanation of sound change notation...)

I though it was $ but I'm not completely sure. :/

"$" is normally syllable boundaries (though I've also seen it used to mark stem/morpheme boundaries).

My usage of "%" in my own notes is simply to mean "with a syllable break intervening at some point" -- that is, I use it for things like "a > e /_%i", "a changes to e if the next syllable contains i". [Except I'm not sure if this is standard notation or if I just appropriated it from some thing I saw at some point and misinterpreted, or what...?]

[Nate]

*p → f p u /V_% (the % is syllable boundary, right? I'd really like a better explanation of sound change notation...)

I though it was $ but I'm not completely sure. :/

*p' → b pː w /_

I don't understand the thought behind turning voiceless plosives into approximants. :/

One of my iffies. /p'/ isn't a voiceless plosive, but an ejective. Is *p' → *p → w not possible? Both are bilabial at least. I probably should have said so, but C is a younger language than A or B, or at least attested in writing more recently. It's gone through a bit more development than the other two.

*k' → gə ke i /#_V

Surely you meant #_C?

... Well, that was a derp mistake. Yes, I did. ^^;

*t → s t t /_
*t → s t s /V_%
*t → s t ∅ /V_N%

Oh right, and about these things. I think SCs should come in chronological order. So you should state the *t → s t t /_ line last, because otherwise there's no *t left for the following two SCs.

That would make it more easy to see how it works, but I was merely thinking in terms of articulation when I jotted down the sound changes.

*t' → d tː h /_

/h/? What?

Now that I think about it, that doesn't make much sense. I wanted the ejectives in C to turn into something much more different than the other two. What would be better reflexes of them?

Show us some sample words and how they'd evolve. It would be interesting to see the sound correspondences between the three languages. B seems conservative.

Yeah, I made sure that B seems more rigid. I guess the best way I can compare them to natlang history, is that A is Spanish, B is Italian (don't quote me on that; I don't speak enough Italian to be 100% sure), ad C is French.

Example words would be useful. After I transfered the sound changes to a forum-friendly format (they were made in a Word document table. maybe I'll use that next time), I got too lazy to do so.

For reference, here's the basic phonology of the proto-lang. Feel free to rip into as well:

Code: Select all

Consonants

Labials: [p b p']
Dentals: [t d t']
Velars: [k g k']

Fricatives: [s h s']

Nasals: [n m]

Liquids: [r l]

Semivowels: [j w]

Vowels
Pure: [a e i u aː eː iː uː]
Diphthongs: [ja je ju wa we wi ai ai ei ui au eu iu] and long equivalents, id est [jː aːu], etc.
Syllabic consonants: r̥, l̥, m̥, n̥

Here's some examples I've whipped up.

*bwir, 'person'
pīr bwir byr

*kjut, 'man'
hīs kjut çus

*s'aut, 'woman'
sāt sːaut ʃaus

*k'meil, 'body'
gəmīl kemēl imel

*gelt, 'tear'
kels get get

*m̥gāk-r̥, 'tongue'
mukāra emgaker ugaxa

*t'mjak, 'blood'
dəmē temjak miaç

*dāp-m̥, 'chin'
tafum dāpem dau

*gub-r̥, 'leg'
kopra guber guva

*makt-m̥, 'tooth'
māsum maktem maxt

*sag-m̥, 'bone'
sakum sagem saʁ

*k'nup-m̥, 'ear'
gənofum kenupem inū


That's as much as I can muster at the moment, but I may add later.

[8Deer]

What can clicks turn into? I have an inventory of /ʘ ǃ ǂ/ in a proto-lang I'm working on and I want to get rid of them in one language.

[Tropylium]

One attested direction of change is pulmonicization, leaving affricates for affricated clicks:
*ǀk *ǀg *ǀŋ /ts dz ndz/ (etc.)
*ǁk *ǁg *ǁŋ /tɬ dɮ ndɮ/ (etc.)
and stops for non-affricated ones:
*ǃk *ǃg *ǃŋ /k g ŋ/ (etc; this is basically loss of the coronal component, but I imagine /t d n/ etc. would also be possible)

Plain voiceless *ǂk would probably yield something around /c/~/tʃ/, *ʘk might yield /pf/ (or perhaps a labial-velar /kp/?)

Another possibility is to turn some click series into others, eg *ǂ ǀ, *ʘ *ʘʷ ǀʷ.

[cybrxkhan]

How plausible is an affricate aspirated consonant? (i.e. t͡ʃ > tʰ, t͡ʃ > kʰ, etc.)

[Cedh]

How plausible is an affricate aspirated consonant? (i.e. t͡ʃ > tʰ, t͡ʃ > kʰ, etc.)

I can't think of a natlang precedent offhand, but based on the fact that all fricatives can easily debuccalise to [h], shifts like p͡f > pʰ, t͡s > tʰ, and k͡x > kʰ are fairly plausible, and also t͡ʃ > tʰ or cʰ. But a change of affricate > fricative seems more common, especially for non-coronal affricates; note e.g. that German /p͡f/ has merged with /f/ in most northern variants except when preceded by a vowel. Also, t͡ʃ > kʰ is not very plausible; you'd expect a reflex of *t͡ʃ to end up further forward in the mouth (see above).

[Tropylium]

I don't think *f, *s, *ʃ h etc. being known necessarily implies anything about affricates. Voiceless frics are sometimes analyzed as "underlyingly aspirated", which works since actual aspiration contrasts among them are rare (so seemingly, the suggestion is that the actual development is *s *sʰ h). With affricates, aspiration contrasts are pretty common and so I would not expect aspiration being added ex nihilo on a plain voiceless one, without the same happening on regular plosivs as well.

However a similar effect could perhaps be reached with the following chain development:
1) Affricates reinterpreted as clusters
2) Single obstruents near vowels (etc.) voice
3) Voiceless obstruents become aspirated, voiced become voiceless
Plus deaffrication somewhere after step 2.
*ta *ʦa *ta *tsa *da *tsa *da *ta ta tʰa

(Affricates resisting (medial) voicing in this kind of fashion is attested in Mordvinic; the "temporarily reanalyzed as cluster" explanation is my own and not necessarily the only possible one. Initial prevocalic voicing is attested in Iroquoian.)

("Clusterization" also opens the possibility of deriving aspiration via regular fricativ debuccalization, but I dunno if you'd want to zap those too.)

[Qwynegold]

*p' → b pː w /_

I don't understand the thought behind turning voiceless plosives into approximants. :/

One of my iffies. /p'/ isn't a voiceless plosive, but an ejective. Is *p' → *p → w not possible? Both are bilabial at least. I probably should have said so, but C is a younger language than A or B, or at least attested in writing more recently. It's gone through a bit more development than the other two.

Whoops, I didn't pay enough attention. Well, as a one step change it would've still been odd.

*t' → d tː h /_

/h/? What?

Now that I think about it, that doesn't make much sense. I wanted the ejectives in C to turn into something much more different than the other two. What would be better reflexes of them?

Hmm, the ones I know about are voiceless plosive, voiced plosive, voiceless geminate plosive. :/

Show us some sample words and how they'd evolve. It would be interesting to see the sound correspondences between the three languages. B seems conservative.

Yeah, I made sure that B seems more rigid. I guess the best way I can compare them to natlang history, is that A is Spanish, B is Italian (don't quote me on that; I don't speak enough Italian to be 100% sure), ad C is French.

Example words would be useful. After I transfered the sound changes to a forum-friendly format (they were made in a Word document table. maybe I'll use that next time), I got too lazy to do so.

For reference, here's the basic phonology of the proto-lang. Feel free to rip into as well:

Code: Select all

Consonants

Labials: [p b p']
Dentals: [t d t']
Velars: [k g k']

Fricatives: [s h s']

Nasals: [n m]

Liquids: [r l]

Semivowels: [j w]

Vowels
Pure: [a e i u aː eː iː uː]
Diphthongs: [ja je ju wa we wi ai ai ei ui au eu iu] and long equivalents, id est [jː aːu], etc.
Syllabic consonants: r̥, l̥, m̥, n̥

Here's some examples I've whipped up.

*bwir, 'person'
pīr bwir byr

*kjut, 'man'
hīs kjut çus

*s'aut, 'woman'
sāt sːaut ʃaus

*k'meil, 'body'
gəmīl kemēl imel

*gelt, 'tear'
kels get get

*m̥gāk-r̥, 'tongue'
mukāra emgaker ugaxa

*t'mjak, 'blood'
dəmē temjak miaç

*dāp-m̥, 'chin'
tafum dāpem dau

*gub-r̥, 'leg'
kopra guber guva

*makt-m̥, 'tooth'
māsum maktem maxt

*sag-m̥, 'bone'
sakum sagem saʁ

*k'nup-m̥, 'ear'
gənofum kenupem inū


That's as much as I can muster at the moment, but I may add later.

Okay. It seems like B changes mostly when the protolang had clusters. And it looks like a middle way between A and C. Btw, those syllabic consonants were not supposed to be voiceless, right?

[Qwynegold]

What can clicks turn into? I have an inventory of /ʘ ǃ ǂ/ in a proto-lang I'm working on and I want to get rid of them in one language.

I think they can also turn into ejectives.

[Qwynegold]

Plain voiceless *ǂk would probably yield something around /c/~/tʃ/, *ʘk might yield /pf/ (or perhaps a labial-velar /kp/?)

Do ʘ really have a velar closure or whatever it's called?