Sound Change Quickie Thread

[CaesarVincens]

Having some trouble with some sound changes and I need a bit of help.

First round, labialization is dropped, which rounds the following vowel (so there's a net increase in vowels, which doesn't matter here):
/b̥ d̥ d̥ʷ ɡ̊ ɡ̊ʷ/ → /b̥ d̥ ɡ̊/
/pʰ tʰ tʷʰ kʰ kʷʰ/ → /pʰ tʰ kʰ/

Second round, "lenis(?)" consonants shift into unvoiced plain stops, and aspirated consonants turn into fricatives:
/b̥ d̥ ɡ̊/ → /p t k/
/pʰ tʰ kʰ/ → /f θ x/

Example: [tʰɨlkʰɨʁʷgʷɨʁʷŋʷkʷʰugtʰil] → [θɨlxɨʁkʉʁŋxukθil]

Is this realistic? I kinda think there should be a specific condition for this instead of just an unconditional change like that. Maybe the fricativization only occurs when preceding or following a certain vowel or consonant?

This is not unlike the Germanic consonant shift from PIE, so no it's not strange to have an unconditional change, but what is likely is to have blocking environments, along the lines of what cedh said.

[Bristel]

Having some trouble with some sound changes and I need a bit of help.

First round, labialization is dropped, which rounds the following vowel (so there's a net increase in vowels, which doesn't matter here):
/b̥ d̥ d̥ʷ ɡ̊ ɡ̊ʷ/ → /b̥ d̥ ɡ̊/
/pʰ tʰ tʷʰ kʰ kʷʰ/ → /pʰ tʰ kʰ/

Second round, "lenis(?)" consonants shift into unvoiced plain stops, and aspirated consonants turn into fricatives:
/b̥ d̥ ɡ̊/ → /p t k/
/pʰ tʰ kʰ/ → /f θ x/

Example: [tʰɨlkʰɨʁʷgʷɨʁʷŋʷkʷʰugtʰil] → [θɨlxɨʁkʉʁŋxukθil]

Is this realistic? I kinda think there should be a specific condition for this instead of just an unconditional change like that. Maybe the fricativization only occurs when preceding or following a certain vowel or consonant?

A good condition would take into account whether the aspirated stops are part of consonant clusters, and probably what kind of consonant clusters too. For instance, maybe fricativization does not happen adjacent to any non-stop consonant. In clusters of two aspirates, maybe only the first one or only the second one would fricate. Non-fricated aspirate stops might then merge with the (now voiceless) lenis stops.

Example: [tʰɨlkʰɨʁʷgʷɨʁʷŋʷkʷʰugtʰil] → [θɨlkɨʁkʉʁŋkukθil]

You could also add a similar condition to the devoicing of lenis stops to avoid the merger in certain positions. Maybe these become /w l j~ʁ/ instead after liquids and/or nasals:

[tʰɨlkʰɨʁʷgʷɨʁʷŋʷkʷʰugtʰil] → [θɨlkɨʁʁʉʁŋkukθil]

Hmm, let me write down examples to see if I understand correctly. Just to clarify, all examples have C(C)V(C)C syllables… so maybe that affects it somehow. The original language has cluster labialization agreement.

[kʰlasʷpʷʰ.dʷɫʷəkʰ] → [klasp.tlɵx] klaspdloch
[pʰenʷ.ɡ̊ʷin] → [fen.ɥin] phenjin (/j/ becomes [ɥ] in a labialized cluster)
[kʷʰɨpʰnatʷʰ] → [kʰʉpʰnatʰ] → [xʉpnaθ] khẙpnauth
[kʷʰɨpʰkʰatʷʰ] → [kʰʉpʰkʰatʰ] → [xʉfkaθ] khẙphkauth(?)
Or → [kʰʉpʰkʰaθ] → [xʉpxaθ] khẙpkhauth(?)

Maybe examples of consonant clusters like /sp st sk/ could undergo metathesis, becoming /ps ts ks/?

[Cedh]

Yes, that looks like what I suggested.

Maybe examples of consonant clusters like /sp st sk/ could undergo metathesis, becoming /ps ts ks/?

Possibly, but you'll be getting a whole lot of both [+fricative][+plosive] clusters and [+plosive][+fricative] clusters, so it might not be wise to merge all of them into [+plosive][+fricative].

[Click]

Could [l] → [lˤ] → [ʕ] and [ð] → [θ] → [ɬ] → [ɬˤ] → [ħ] be a plausible means of developing a pharyngeal series?
If two glides are adjacent to each other, would it be plausible for the left one to be ejected into the previous syllable, e.g. [ˈtenwja] → [ˈtewnja]?

[Cedh]

Could [l] → [lˤ] → [ʕ] and [ð] → [θ] → [ɬ] → [ɬˤ] → [ħ] be a plausible means of developing a pharyngeal series?

Yes. The [ð] → [θ] part would likely go along with devoicing of any other voiced fricatives though.

If two glides are adjacent to each other, would it be plausible for the left one to be ejected into the previous syllable, e.g. [ˈtenwja] → [ˈtewnja]?

Yes.

[Click]

Could [l] → [lˤ] → [ʕ] and [ð] → [θ] → [ɬ] → [ɬˤ] → [ħ] be a plausible means of developing a pharyngeal series?

Yes. The [ð] → [θ] part would likely go along with devoicing of any other voiced fricatives though.

Can [z] still stay intact even though all other fricatives devoice?

[Cúlro]

Perhaps if the z~s contrast had a much higher functional load than the other contrasts?

[Click]

Is this particular change affecting glottalised vowels plausible?

• [iˀ] [ɨˀ] [uˀ] [eˀ] [əˀ] [oˀ] [aˀ] → [i̯ɤˀ] [ɨ̯ɤˀ] [u̯oˀ] [i̯ɤˀ] [ɨ̯ɤˀ] [o̯ɒˀ] [e̯ɑˀ]

• [iːˀ] [ɨːˀ] [uːˀ] [eːˀ] [əːˀ] [oːˀ] [aːˀ] → [i̯ɤːˀ] [ɨ̯ɤːˀ] [u̯oːˀ] [i̯ɤːˀ] [ɨ̯ɤːˀ] [o̯ɒːˀ] [e̯ɑːˀ]

[tezcatlip0ca]

Is this particular change affecting glottalised vowels plausible?

• [iˀ] [ɨˀ] [uˀ] [eˀ] [əˀ] [oˀ] [aˀ] → [i̯ɤˀ] [ɨ̯ɤˀ] [u̯oˀ] [i̯ɤˀ] [ɨ̯ɤˀ] [o̯ɒˀ] [e̯ɑˀ]

• [iːˀ] [ɨːˀ] [uːˀ] [eːˀ] [əːˀ] [oːˀ] [aːˀ] → [i̯ɤːˀ] [ɨ̯ɤːˀ] [u̯oːˀ] [i̯ɤːˀ] [ɨ̯ɤːˀ] [o̯ɒːˀ] [e̯ɑːˀ]

I think it is. Glottalisation can become pharyngealization and then retract the vowels.

[8Deer]

I have a set of pseudo diphthongs ending in /j w/. How bout a shift where they become /jV wV/ word-initially?

[Kilanie]

How likely is a one-step shift of /sj/ > /ɕ/, specifically as compared to the likelihood that it would just go /sj/ > /ʃ/?

[Nortaneous]

Click: stranger things have happened -- see Khmer

8Deer: unlikely. the only case of diphthong metathesis I know of is in Chechen, which has /je wo/ > [ej ow] after pharyngealized consonants (and presumably also /ɥø/ > [øɥ] but I'm not sure), in addition to diphthongization of high vowels, /i y u/ > [əi əy əu] in the same environment. The /je/ series pattern as units though, so I'm not sure if that's metathesis diachronically, and not *monophthongs breaking in different ways depending on environment.

Kilanie: that's fine, the difference between the two is minimal and really not important here. it's almost certainly attested, maybe in Japanese?

[Zaarin]

If a language contrasts dental and alveolar series, how likely is a chain shift of alveolar to palatal and dental to alveolar?

E.g., t̺ > c, t̪ > t

EDIT: Also suppose one wanted to turn ejectives into implosives. Does something like this work?

pʼ > pʔ
Cʔ > ʔC
ʔp > ɓ

[Nortaneous]

For languages that contrast dental and alveolar series, there's a statistical universal regarding which series is laminal and which is apical. I can't remember which is which, but I think it's the dentals are laminal and the alveolars are apical.

Palatals are laminal -- their apical equivalents are retroflex. So, while I don't think it's impossible -- stranger things have happened -- it's unlikely.

There's probably some series of intermediate steps that would make it work, but I can't think of any. Are there any natlangs where retroflexes turn straight to palatals? I know the opposite is attested...

The ejective > implosive series looks unlikely, but The Synchronic and Diachronic Phonology of Ejectives says you can go straight from ejectives to implosives. (pp. 258-266 or so)

[Zaarin]

For languages that contrast dental and alveolar series, there's a statistical universal regarding which series is laminal and which is apical. I can't remember which is which, but I think it's the dentals are laminal and the alveolars are apical.

Palatals are laminal -- their apical equivalents are retroflex. So, while I don't think it's impossible -- stranger things have happened -- it's unlikely.

There's probably some series of intermediate steps that would make it work, but I can't think of any. Are there any natlangs where retroflexes turn straight to palatals? I know the opposite is attested...

I'll have to give it some thought then. I have a language with dental-alveolar contrast with three daughter languages. One preserves the contrast, one collapses them, and I want to do something more interesting with the third...

The ejective > implosive series looks unlikely, but The Synchronic and Diachronic Phonology of Ejectives says you can go straight from ejectives to implosives. (pp. 258-266 or so)

That would certainly be easier, then.

[Nortaneous]

I'll have to give it some thought then. I have a language with dental-alveolar contrast with three daughter languages. One preserves the contrast, one collapses them, and I want to do something more interesting with the third...

alveolar > retroflex > velar?

[Zaarin]

I'll have to give it some thought then. I have a language with dental-alveolar contrast with three daughter languages. One preserves the contrast, one collapses them, and I want to do something more interesting with the third...

alveolar > retroflex > velar?

That sounds like a good solution; thanks.

[----]

Vn > á/_#
Vŋ > í/_#
Vm > ú/_#

Only in multisyllabic words. Acute accent represents tone shift or stress.

???

[Pogostick Man]

Vn > á/_#
Vŋ > í/_#
Vm > ú/_#

Only in multisyllabic words. Acute accent represents tone shift or stress.

???

Tone shift seems more likely to me, but downwards, not upwards. Also seems like this'd work better if the vowel were unstressed. Vm > u doesn't seem too out-of-place; Vn > a doesn't seem like too much of a stretch either, given that syllabic nasals going to /e/ appears to have been attested in Salish. Vŋ > i is the only one I'm kind of on the fence about.

[Nortaneous]

doubt it unless you switch to syllabic nasals first, and i'd think you'd end up with syllabic resonants there too if those are allowed _# in multisyllabic words. but if you do get there through syllabic nasals those are sensible values for them i guess

not sure about the tone shift -- i'd expect low tone / unstressed -- but if it's tone proper and not some sort of accent, tone does weird enough shit that you can get away with pretty much anything

[----]

Vŋ > i is the only one I'm kind of on the fence about.

My justification is that in at least a few languages (Burmese, English), some vowels historically raised before ŋ. So like, Vŋ > əŋ > ɪŋ > ĩ > ì

[zyxw59]

Is:
k → ts
g → dz
ɣ → ʒ
before i e ɛ
plausible as a one-step change?

[sangi39]

Is:
k → ts
g → dz
ɣ → ʒ
before i e ɛ
plausible as a one-step change?

Someone else might have a different opinion, but I get the feeling that while these changes are plausible in the long run, they might not be so plausible as on-step changes. I, personally, would expect something palatal-ish in the middle.

[zyxw59]

How about:
k → c → ts
g → ɟ → dz
ɣ → ʝ → ʒ

[sangi39]

How about:
k → c → ts
g → ɟ → dz
ɣ → ʝ → ʒ

That was pretty much my thinking, either that or alveolo-patals.