Sound Change Quickie Thread

[Drydic]

I can't tell...was that supposed to be some sort of retort? If so it was pretty weak.

[dhok]

Could I voice consonants if there were a following nasalized stressed vowel?

[Drydic]

Voicing is usually more likely in unstressed environments, see nearly every English function word with a dental fricative.

[Cael]

How likely is it that a language will drop coda consonants to substitute them with /j/ which also brings syllable redistribution?

In other words, is something akin to /sɔk.'aː/ --> /sɔ.'jaː/ be plausible?

To clarify, this change is motivated by 1) two heavy syllables may not appear next to each other and 2) the general trend is to preserve heavy syllables word-finally.

[WeepingElf]

How likely is it that a language will drop coda consonants to substitute them with /j/ which also brings syllable redistribution?

In other words, is something akin to /sɔk.'aː/ --> /sɔ.'jaː/ be plausible?

To clarify, this change is motivated by 1) two heavy syllables may not appear next to each other and 2) the general trend is to preserve heavy syllables word-finally.

I'd expect something like /sɔk.'aː/ to be resyllabified as /sɔ.'kaː/, unless there is a phonemic glottal stop or something like that before the second vowel (i.e., you have /sɔk.'ʔaː/) . Such a glottal stop can be weakened to almost anything, so why not to /j/?

[Cael]

I'd expect something like /sɔk.'aː/ to be resyllabified as /sɔ.'kaː/, unless there is a phonemic glottal stop or something like that before the second vowel (i.e., you have /sɔk.'ʔaː/) . Such a glottal stop can be weakened to almost anything, so why not to /j/?

The only problem I have with this is that I would still have two heavy syllables adjacent /sɔk.'jaː/. But...I could do something akin to /sɔ.'kjaː/ or even go the palatalization route. /sɔ.'tʃaː/. Thank you very much

[WeepingElf]

I'd expect something like /sɔk.'aː/ to be resyllabified as /sɔ.'kaː/, unless there is a phonemic glottal stop or something like that before the second vowel (i.e., you have /sɔk.'ʔaː/) . Such a glottal stop can be weakened to almost anything, so why not to /j/?

The only problem I have with this is that I would still have two heavy syllables adjacent /sɔk.'jaː/. But...I could do something akin to /sɔ.'kjaː/ or even go the palatalization route. /sɔ.'tʃaː/. Thank you very much

You can delete the /k/, of course. What I was saying was just that a single consonant between two vowels is unlikely to be counted as the coda of the first syllable.

[Cael]

I'd expect something like /sɔk.'aː/ to be resyllabified as /sɔ.'kaː/, unless there is a phonemic glottal stop or something like that before the second vowel (i.e., you have /sɔk.'ʔaː/) . Such a glottal stop can be weakened to almost anything, so why not to /j/?

The only problem I have with this is that I would still have two heavy syllables adjacent /sɔk.'jaː/. But...I could do something akin to /sɔ.'kjaː/ or even go the palatalization route. /sɔ.'tʃaː/. Thank you very much

You can delete the /k/, of course. What I was saying was just that a single consonant between two vowels is unlikely to be counted as the coda of the first syllable.

Ohh! That makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up

[R.Rusanov]

How about this sound change?

dw -> erk

As I understand it went dw > dg > tk > rk > erk. Using exactly that set of changes in a conlang might be too meta, I think.

[Pole, the]

Not funny.

Doch!

How about this sound change?

dw -> erk

As I understand it went dw > dg > tk > rk > erk. Using exactly that set of changes in a conlang might be too meta, I think.

Still, one could go the other way and IMHO it would be plausible.

--

What about n > m / u_, _u?

[Herr Dunkel]

Assimilation - it's ok.

[Qwynegold]

Could there be such a thing as a vowel that starts out oral and then turns nasal? I was thinking of turning nasalized vowels (which are allophonic) into those "half-nasalized" vowels in C[-nasal]_C[+nasal] and #_C[+nasal], and keep them completely nasalized when between two nasal consonants.

[Pogostick Man]

Could there be such a thing as a vowel that starts out oral and then turns nasal? I was thinking of turning nasalized vowels (which are allophonic) into those "half-nasalized" vowels in C[-nasal]_C[+nasal] and #_C[+nasal], and keep them completely nasalized when between two nasal consonants.

According to Xiądz Faust's writeup on Polish diachronics, nasal vowels in Polish are more of vowels with a nasalized offglide. Just going by that I wouldn't say what you have is really unrealistic, but I am by no means an expert.

[Burke]

So this didn't sound completely reasonable in my head, and I wanted to check that my thinking is sound.

First, the conlang I am working on has no voice distinction for stops. I was thinking of voicing intervocalically, but only moving p -> b.I sat back and thought if one stop voices like that, why would not the others? It felt incongruent. Is this solid thinking?

Also, I was thinking of epenenthis (sic?). I thought this was sensible

ns -> nts / V_V
and
m -> mp / V_kV, V_tV
ŋ -> ŋk / V_pV, V_tV

Thanks kindly
Your favorite pungent veggie

[Nortaneous]

I'd expect ns > nts to be universal unless your phonotactics prohibit it elsewhere. The other epenthesis rules are fine, but I'd expect an equivalent one for n.

[Burke]

Makes sense, thanks. Luckily I guess, since the syllable structure is simple (C)V(Nasal) the n one is universal no matter how hard I try.

I get what you're saying for

n -> nt / V_pV,V_kV

I guess it just doesn't sound pretty in my head. But that doesn't allow me to break consistency.

[GBR]

Notation question!
What's the standard way to write [stop][same stop]->[just one of dem stops]? Or is it generally assumed that gemination doesn't occur unless you specifically say it does?

[Ser]

Notation question!
What's the standard way to write [stop][same stop]->[just one of dem stops]? Or is it generally assumed that gemination doesn't occur unless you specifically say it does?

p: > p, I'd think.

[GBR]

Notation question!
What's the standard way to write [stop][same stop]->[just one of dem stops]? Or is it generally assumed that gemination doesn't occur unless you specifically say it does?

p: > p, I'd think.

Where : represents gemination? So one could have the general rule C:->C ?

[Thry]

Yep, roughly happened in Latin to Western romance I think (ll and rr are a bit weird though)

[GBR]

Great. Thanks guys.

[Qwynegold]

Could there be such a thing as a vowel that starts out oral and then turns nasal? I was thinking of turning nasalized vowels (which are allophonic) into those "half-nasalized" vowels in C[-nasal]_C[+nasal] and #_C[+nasal], and keep them completely nasalized when between two nasal consonants.

According to Xiądz Faust's writeup on Polish diachronics, nasal vowels in Polish are more of vowels with a nasalized offglide. Just going by that I wouldn't say what you have is really unrealistic, but I am by no means an expert.

Then I'm going with it! Thanks!

[GBR]

ui→ɨ/_[x,ɣ]
oɛ→ə/_[x,ɣ]
Make any sense at all? My knowledge of phonetics is hoooorrrrriiiibllllllle.

Edit: hurpdurp.

[Nortaneous]

^ yes

1. What can I do with initial nasal+consonant clusters?
2. What can I do with geminate consonants, especially given that they occur initially?

[Click]

1. What can I do with initial nasal+consonant clusters?
2. What can I do with geminate consonants, especially given that they occur initially?

1. Make the nasal syllabic and then vocalise it.
2. You can aspirate them. Palatalisation could work, maybe.

How to get pitch accent or tone without touching diphthongs, voicing or aspiration and "laryngeals"?