Sound Change Quickie Thread

[Taernsietr]

Not really a sound change, but is word-final /p t k/ -> [ʋ s̪ x*] a reasonable phonemic alternation? I intended to use these three phonemes (/p t k/) as some sort of verbal thematic vowel for inflections, since word-final stops aren't allowed, but I also have /ʋ s̪ x/ as independent phonemes...

*actually [h], since word-final /x/ becomes [h]...

[Přemysl]

A quick google search showed final stops becoming fricatives in a bunch of languages, though most of them were under some sort of condition, e.g. dorsal consonants only or following a back vowel. I would however expect p > ɸ or at least something voiceless (e.g. h). Also note you don't need to have /k/ be [h], if /x/ is [h] in word final position then /k/ could easily be [x] as there is no conflict if it happens in the right order.

[Přemysl]

Okay so Proto-Halauzhani has a lopsided frequency of vowels and dipthongs. In order from most frequent to least frequent they are a a: ai au i i: r= u u:. /a/ is the most frequent by far (having come from *e, *o, and *a).

I have a feeling this will balance some in daughter languages. What are some possibilities for shifting or splitting or whatever will even the system up some?

As for environments the language has bilabials, dentals, post-alveolars, palatals, and velars for points of articulation as well as oral stops and affricates (with voicing distinction), nasal stops, fricatives, approximants, and a trill for methods of articulation. Some syllables have CjV clusters though it alternates with CijV after "heavy syllables". Since /l/ < */rj/ this lead to the alternation ClV and CrijV.I'm not sure if it matters but there is also an alternation of CvV and CuvV under the same "heavy syllable" conditioning.

[WeepingElf]

How fine is /ʕ/ > /ʀ/ > /r/?

[Qwynegold]

Okay so Proto-Halauzhani has a lopsided frequency of vowels and dipthongs. In order from most frequent to least frequent they are a a: ai au i i: r= u u:. /a/ is the most frequent by far (having come from *e, *o, and *a).

I have a feeling this will balance some in daughter languages. What are some possibilities for shifting or splitting or whatever will even the system up some?

As for environments the language has bilabials, dentals, post-alveolars, palatals, and velars for points of articulation as well as oral stops and affricates (with voicing distinction), nasal stops, fricatives, approximants, and a trill for methods of articulation. Some syllables have CjV clusters though it alternates with CijV after "heavy syllables". Since /l/ < */rj/ this lead to the alternation ClV and CrijV.I'm not sure if it matters but there is also an alternation of CvV and CuvV under the same "heavy syllable" conditioning.

How about aː > ɑː > ɒː > oː (and lose the lentgth distinction if you want, but you could also keep it)? And ai > e, au > o.

[sirdanilot]

a a: ai au i i: r= u u:

Dipthongization is your answer !
a: keep as is
a: what the guy above said, eventually becoming /ɔ:/
ai -> /ɛɪ/
au -> /ɑːw/
i: keep as is
i: -> /ɛɪ/
r=: keep as is, or /ɹ=/
u, merge with u:

This will give you a pretty balanced system of:
/a/, /ɔ:/, /ɛɪ/ /ɑːw/ /i/ /ɹ=/ /u/

/u/ will still be pretty rare, simply because you didn't have /o/ in the first place. You could solve this by making some common morphemes so that they contain this phoneme (like in Biblical Hebrew, where /u/ isn't the most ubiquitous sound either). The /ɛɪ/ merger is a good way to get rid of one uncommon sound.

What you could do, is /r=/ -> /ɹʷ=/ (this happened in, for example, Leiden Dutch, though it never had pure syllabic /r/), and then get rid of it to produce more /u/'s.

[Nortaneous]

How fine is /ʕ/ > /ʀ/ > /r/?

First part is fine, second part I can't see happening, although watch some Austronesian lang turn out to have it.

[Solarius]

Is h changing to ʔ plausible?

[Přemysl]

Is h changing to ʔ plausible?

Not only plausible but likely.

[WeepingElf]

Okay so Proto-Halauzhani has a lopsided frequency of vowels and dipthongs. In order from most frequent to least frequent they are a a: ai au i i: r= u u:. /a/ is the most frequent by far (having come from *e, *o, and *a).

I have a feeling this will balance some in daughter languages. What are some possibilities for shifting or splitting or whatever will even the system up some?

As for environments the language has bilabials, dentals, post-alveolars, palatals, and velars for points of articulation as well as oral stops and affricates (with voicing distinction), nasal stops, fricatives, approximants, and a trill for methods of articulation. Some syllables have CjV clusters though it alternates with CijV after "heavy syllables". Since /l/ < */rj/ this lead to the alternation ClV and CrijV.I'm not sure if it matters but there is also an alternation of CvV and CuvV under the same "heavy syllable" conditioning.

Your vowel system looks a lot like that of Sanskrit to me, so a look at the developments in Indo-Aryan languages may be helpful.

[Ser]

How fine is /ʕ/ > /ʀ/ > /r/?

First part is fine, second part I can't see happening, although watch some Austronesian lang turn out to have it.

Some people think [ʀ] > [r] might have happened in Biblical Hebrew (noting /r/ behaves like a "laryngeal" consonant morphophonologically)...

[Whimemsz]

How fine is /ʕ/ > /ʀ/ > /r/?

First part is fine, second part I can't see happening, although watch some Austronesian lang turn out to have it.

Well...sort of, a lot of them do, assuming the normal reconstruction of the Proto-Austronesian trill R as */ʀ/ is accurate? (it ends up as /r/ in a number of languages, but also things like /g/ and /h/ in others, soooo...)

[Přemysl]

Your vowel system looks a lot like that of Sanskrit to me, so a look at the developments in Indo-Aryan languages may be helpful.

The language is Indo-Iranian so yeah the systems are similar. But thank you for the suggestion. I had only been looking at Old Persian and Avestan for inspiration, I had forgotten about Indic languages.

I had even been toying with the idea of i and u affection, so:
xvaadahi kanlangalai: apudkast ati hizhuubiyah tashanaabiyah ka viraibiyah yaah tashanti avaa. >
xvaadehi kanlangalei: opudkast eti hizhuubiyah tashanaebiyah ke vireibiyah yaah tashenti avaa.

[sirdanilot]

Not really a sound change, but is word-final /p t k/ -> [ʋ s̪ x*] a reasonable phonemic alternation? I intended to use these three phonemes (/p t k/) as some sort of verbal thematic vowel for inflections, since word-final stops aren't allowed, but I also have /ʋ s̪ x/ as independent phonemes...

*actually [h], since word-final /x/ becomes [h]...

Oh, I just saw this now.

Biblical Hebrew turns intervocalic and word-final /p/, /t/, /k/, /b/, /d/, /g/ into their lenited counterparts /f/, /θ/ /x/ /v/ /ð/ /ɣ/. Old Irish also has lenition word-finally /b/ /d/ /g/ -> /v/ ð/ /ɣ/.

I would keep the /x/ versus /h/ distinction, except if /x/ -> /h/ is a later change. In Zeelandic Dutch, /h/ disappeared entirely and /x/ became /h/ (well, it still has a somewhat dorsal articulation, but it sounds more like [h]. Shifts of these sort happen all the time.

[sirdanilot]

How fine is /ʕ/ > /ʀ/ > /r/?

First part is fine, second part I can't see happening, although watch some Austronesian lang turn out to have it.

Some people think [ʀ] > [r] might have happened in Biblical Hebrew (noting /r/ behaves like a "laryngeal" consonant morphophonologically)...

How do they know that it was ever pronounced [r]? Perhaps it has always been an uvular r? Many Dutch dialects have only an uvular trill, so that's not very weird or anything.

I find it quite strange that /r/ cannot be geminated, anyway, since most languages have no problems with that. At least it doesn't attract a-type vowels, so it must have never been pronounced /ʁ/ like some people do today...

[Taernsietr]

Not really a sound change, but is word-final /p t k/ -> [ʋ s̪ x*] a reasonable phonemic alternation? I intended to use these three phonemes (/p t k/) as some sort of verbal thematic vowel for inflections, since word-final stops aren't allowed, but I also have /ʋ s̪ x/ as independent phonemes...

*actually [h], since word-final /x/ becomes [h]...

Oh, I just saw this now.

Biblical Hebrew turns intervocalic and word-final /p/, /t/, /k/, /b/, /d/, /g/ into their lenited counterparts /f/, /θ/ /x/ /v/ /ð/ /ɣ/. Old Irish also has lenition word-finally /b/ /d/ /g/ -> /v/ ð/ /ɣ/.

I would keep the /x/ versus /h/ distinction, except if /x/ -> /h/ is a later change. In Zeelandic Dutch, /h/ disappeared entirely and /x/ became /h/ (well, it still has a somewhat dorsal articulation, but it sounds more like [h]. Shifts of these sort happen all the time.

Oh. But in my conlang's case, it's not diachronic, just a phoneme alternation (/ʋ s̪ x/ do exist as different phonemes in the language)... Also, it's not /p t k/ -> /f θ x/ as is common.

I'm keeping the [x] vs [h] distinction though. Maybe I'll base more things on this alternation the same way. Thanks, people!

[8Deer]

Is it plausible for breathy voiced consonants to become creaky voiced and then ejectives?

[Herr Dunkel]

Is it plausible for breathy voiced consonants to become creaky voiced and then ejectives?

Yes, very plausible

[Nortaneous]

Uh, probably not? Breathy and creaky voice are on opposite sides of modal voice.

[Herr Dunkel]

Uh, probably not? Breathy and creaky voice are on opposite sides of modal voice.

It's not a continuum, as far as I can reckon. Like isolation and synthesis.
Breathy can make low-pitched stuff, which can make it creaky, which can go to ejectivisation.

[Nortaneous]

you """"""""""""""reckon""""""""""""""""

how about reading a thing instead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonation

[Herr Dunkel]

you """"""""""""""reckon""""""""""""""""

how about reading a thing instead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonation

Then how can you explain the fact that I can transit my voice from breathy to creaky without touching modal voiced?

[Whimemsz]

Man you should totally write a paper based on your extensive research and get it published

[Herr Dunkel]

Man you should totally write a paper based on your extensive research and get it published

Srsly though.
This is what I do (learning from Hindi movies):

A third is to constrict the glottis, but separate the arytenoid cartilages that control one end. This results in the vocal cords being drawn together for voicing in the back, but separated to allow the passage of large volumes of air in the front.

When it further constricts, it causes creaky voice, at least for me.

[8Deer]

Uh, probably not? Breathy and creaky voice are on opposite sides of modal voice.

Thats kind of what I was concerned about, but I thought it might be workable anyways. What's the best way for ejectives to develop?