Sound Change Quickie Thread

Substantial postings about constructed languages and constructed worlds in general. Good place to mention your own or evaluate someone else's. Put quick questions in C&C Quickies instead.
Sexendèƚo
Sanci
Sanci
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 3:55 pm

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Sexendèƚo »

Travis B. wrote:There is no such thing as a "first" sound change in a language, as languages have no single time in which they come into being.
I imagine they mean "first sound change after the constructed proto-language" or something like that.
yangfiretiger121 wrote:It was one of the first sound changes in the language. The distinction lasted a year or so in the language's formative stages before collapsing into the fricative sound. What's troubling me is if they'd have preserved the <lh> spelling for these many years or changed it to <hl> sometime along the way. That question should be answered here, though.
The issue is that if a language contrasts two voiceless alveolar/dental lateral continuants, it's because one is palatalized or glottalized. Afaik, no known language contrasts /ɬ/ with /l̥/. Of course just because we don't observe something doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't exist, but you have to ask whether the acoustic difference between [ɬ] and [l̥] is salient enough for a realistic language to have them as separate phonemes in the first place.

Having /l/ allophonically devoiced in certain positions, and being reinterpreted as the phoneme /ɬ/ makes sense to me, but /l̥/ and /ɬ/ as separate phonemes does not.

----

Two questions for my lang:
1. Is loss of lateralization for [ɬ] realistic - the change is [ɬ̪ˠ]→[θˠ]
2. Are /θˠ~θˤ/ and /θ/, /ɸˠ/ and /ɸ/ likely to remain stable as seperate phonemes? And if not, how might their later forms/reflexes remain distinctive?

Here's my idea of the realization of the clusters in the language:
/bl/ → [bɫ̪]
/bn/ → [bn̪]
/pl/ → [pɫ̪]
/pn/ → [pn̪]
/pʰl/ → [pɬ̪ˠ] (later → [pθˠ]) → /pθˠ/?
/pʰn/ → [pn̪̊] (later → [pθ],) → /pθ/?

(Note: /l/ [ɫ̪] contrasts with /lʲ/ [l̠ʲ])

User avatar
mèþru
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1984
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:44 am
Location: suburbs of Mrin
Contact:

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by mèþru »

  1. Yes
  2. I think it could happen, especially if you give the second set labialisation or palatalisation
ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!
kårroť

Travis B.
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 3570
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Location: Milwaukee, US

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Travis B. »

Loss of lateralization for [ɬ] is very realistic - it happened in much of Semitic, and it seems to be happening in Welsh (e.g. /ɬ/ sounding more like [ç]), e.g.

Likewise keeping separate velarized or pharyngealized consonants is realistic, especially if they, as mentioned, contrast with palatalized or labialized consonants.
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.

User avatar
Zaarin
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:00 pm

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Zaarin »

Sexendèƚo wrote:2. Are /θˠ~θˤ/ and /θ/, /ɸˠ/ and /ɸ/ likely to remain stable as seperate phonemes? And if not, how might their later forms/reflexes remain distinctive?
The distinction between pharyngealized and plain consonants has been stable in Arabic and Aramaic for a couple millennia at least, so I'd say you're good. That being said, I could see ɸˤ > ħ happening very easily.
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”

User avatar
Tropylium
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 512
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 1:13 pm
Location: Halfway to Hyperborea

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Tropylium »

Sexendèƚo wrote:What could I turn voiceless nasals into?
Voiceless implosives? Possibly to be followed by these then turning into regular voiced ones.

Consider also a chain shift: maybe plain nasals turn to something else (e.g. nasalized fricatives /β̃ ð̃/), while the voiceless nasals turn into new plain nasals.
Sexendèƚo wrote:2. Are /θˠ~θˤ/ and /θ/, /ɸˠ/ and /ɸ/ likely to remain stable as seperate phonemes? And if not, how might their later forms/reflexes remain distinctive?
I would imagine /ɸˠ/ at least is very likely to turn into /x/ or /xʷ/.
[ˌʔaɪsəˈpʰɻ̊ʷoʊpɪɫ ˈʔæɫkəɦɔɫ]

User avatar
Frislander
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 836
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 6:34 am
Location: The North

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Frislander »

Travis B. wrote:Loss of lateralization for [ɬ] is very realistic - it happened in much of Semitic
Well that does depend on whether you actually think that Proto-Semitic should be reconstructed with laterals in the first place, which I don't. But apart from that, yeah, loss of lateralisation is realistic (see also Khanty and really Ugric in general).
https://frislander.tumblr.com/

First known on here as Karero

User avatar
Zaarin
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:00 pm

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Zaarin »

Frislander wrote:
Travis B. wrote:Loss of lateralization for [ɬ] is very realistic - it happened in much of Semitic
Well that does depend on whether you actually think that Proto-Semitic should be reconstructed with laterals in the first place, which I don't. But apart from that, yeah, loss of lateralisation is realistic (see also Khanty and really Ugric in general).
What about the South Semitic languages and Biblical Hebrew retaining /ɬ/ (see Hb baśam > Gk balsam)? There's also clear evidence that Arabic /ðˁ/ was earlier /ɮˁ/ courtesy descriptions by Arabic writers. /ɬ/ is also one of the likelier candidates to give such diverse yields as /ɬ θ s ʃ/ across Semitic. Isn't there also some broader Afro-Asiatic evidence for /ɬ/? I feel like the overall evidence for a lateral quality to ś is pretty strong.
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”

User avatar
mèþru
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1984
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:44 am
Location: suburbs of Mrin
Contact:

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by mèþru »

I completely agree with Zaarin - a lateral fricative is much more reasonable than any other interpretation.
ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!
kårroť

User avatar
Frislander
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 836
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 6:34 am
Location: The North

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Frislander »

Firstly, there are far too many gaps in the data to really say anything conclusive. Second the idea that Greek "balsam" must necessarily represent a lateral fricative is stupid: it's cognate with Arabic /basam/ "pleasantness", a correspondence which gives Proto-Semitic *š rather that *ś, so it should have therefore been /ʃ/ in Hebrew as well which was just badly transcribed because Greek as you should well know had no consistent method of writing /ʃ/, so there's n reason to suppose that the lambda is really indicative of anything. Furthermore there is no good "wider Afro-Asiatic evidence"; the lateral fricatives in Chadic and Cushitic are both areally restricted and innovative and otherwise there is nothing whatsoever.

Also nice to see how all of the evidence comes from a couple of Central Semitic languages, with no consideration of the much greater diversity of South Semitic, and the evidence that's there that might be taken to support it is actually fairly weak: the only branch which shows any kind of lateral fricatives at present (Modern South Arabian) doesn't show the one-too-one lateral fricative to sibilant correspondences that would have otherwise been expected (because MSA was only brought into consideration after Proto-Semitic was reconstructed), and Ethiosemitic lacks them completely, the only reason Ge'ez is reconstructed with them is because again Proto-Semitic was reconstructed before Ge'ez was even considered. The closest we can come is saying that there might have been a lateral fricative of some kind in Proto-Central Semitic, but beyond that there's little basis for the reconstruction.
https://frislander.tumblr.com/

First known on here as Karero

User avatar
Soap
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1228
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: Scattered disc
Contact:

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Soap »

Tropylium wrote:
Consider also a chain shift: maybe plain nasals turn to something else (e.g. nasalized fricatives /β̃ ð̃/), while the voiceless nasals turn into new plain nasals.
I don't believe in nasalized fricatives. All langs claimed to have them have other explanations. E.g. in umb7ndu, it's just /v/ patterning as if it were /mf/,but is not actually mf.
In old Irish, it was never described as such until recently and may have been an approximaht. In some other langs, titles are placed over the letters in romanization but do not indicate a nasalbc9nsonant.in

Re balsam
Doesn't the Hebrew word exist in the bible? Were the frics already merged even then?
Sunàqʷa the Sea Lamprey says:
Image

User avatar
mèþru
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1984
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:44 am
Location: suburbs of Mrin
Contact:

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by mèþru »

Hebrew used ש for both ś and š. The former is where you get /s/ <ש> from. The modern word is pronounced with an /s/, not a /ʃ/. It could be that either Hebrew or Arabic had changed the original consonant in an unknown, possibly irregular, sound change.
ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!
kårroť

User avatar
StrangerCoug
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 269
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 8:56 pm
Location: El Paso, TX

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by StrangerCoug »

Frislander wrote:Second the idea that Greek "balsam" must necessarily represent a lateral fricative is stupid: it's cognate with Arabic /basam/ "pleasantness", a correspondence which gives Proto-Semitic *š rather that *ś, so it should have therefore been /ʃ/ in Hebrew as well which was just badly transcribed because Greek as you should well know had no consistent method of writing /ʃ/, so there's n reason to suppose that the lambda is really indicative of anything.
By that logic, why is <λ> even there? I would expect /ʃ/ to become /s/ in a language that borrowed the former and didn't have it, not /ls/ (see יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushalayim becoming <Jerusalem>).
Current avatar by malibupup of FurAffinity.

My conlangs on this site:
Proto-Wideriver

User avatar
Zaarin
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:00 pm

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Zaarin »

StrangerCoug wrote:
Frislander wrote:Second the idea that Greek "balsam" must necessarily represent a lateral fricative is stupid: it's cognate with Arabic /basam/ "pleasantness", a correspondence which gives Proto-Semitic *š rather that *ś, so it should have therefore been /ʃ/ in Hebrew as well which was just badly transcribed because Greek as you should well know had no consistent method of writing /ʃ/, so there's n reason to suppose that the lambda is really indicative of anything.
By that logic, why is <λ> even there? I would expect /ʃ/ to become /s/ in a language that borrowed the former and didn't have it, not /ls/ (see יְרוּשָׁלַיִם Yerushalayim becoming <Jerusalem>).
Agreed. Greek and Latin consistently borrowed /ʃ/ as /s/.
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”

User avatar
KathTheDragon
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2139
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
Location: Brittania

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by KathTheDragon »

Even if the Semitic correspondence points to *š, is it not possible that there was an irregular shift to *ś somewhere down the line to Hebrew, which was in fact a lateral fricative? It would be a much tidier explanation.

User avatar
Raholeun
Sanci
Sanci
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 7:30 am
Location: sub omnibus canonibus

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Raholeun »

For quite some time now I have been fidgeting with coda glottal stops in my language. These arise mainly from coda plosives in the proto-language, but I decided they should be simplified even more. So lets hypothesize a word *katkat (possibly a reduplicated action verb). This became *kaʔ.kah, but I want to completely eradicate all obstruent coda's. My current thinking is this:

*ˈkaʔ.kah > *ˈkaɣʲ.ka > *ka.ˈɣʲi.ka > ˈka.ɣʲi̥.ka (with a voiceless [i̥] if its hard to see)

I am not as much worried about the spirantization of *ʔ > ɣʲ, or the following resyllabification. It is the voiceless epenthetic vowel that worries me most. Is this common or plausible? Since stress is on the penult, would it be "cheating" to make an exception for voiceless vowel nuclei?
language LNK. cover

User avatar
Frislander
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 836
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 6:34 am
Location: The North

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Frislander »

Raholeun wrote:For quite some time now I have been fidgeting with coda glottal stops in my language. These arise mainly from coda plosives in the proto-language, but I decided they should be simplified even more. So lets hypothesize a word *katkat (possibly a reduplicated action verb). This became *kaʔ.kah, but I want to completely eradicate all obstruent coda's. My current thinking is this:

*ˈkaʔ.kah > *ˈkaɣʲ.ka > *ka.ˈɣʲi.ka > ˈka.ɣʲi̥.ka (with a voiceless [i̥] if its hard to see)

I am not as much worried about the spirantization of *ʔ > ɣʲ, or the following resyllabification. It is the voiceless epenthetic vowel that worries me most. Is this common or plausible? Since stress is on the penult, would it be "cheating" to make an exception for voiceless vowel nuclei?
OK, so just because your stress was originally penult doesn't mean it has to stay that way for every word when funky stuff happens, and having exceptions for things like epenthetic vowels is perfectly natural.

Secondly though I can't see the motivation for the voicelessness. Voiceless vowels almost always occur adjacent to voiceless consonants, and that's what conditions them, not the absence of stress, status as an epenthetic vowel or similar.

So essentially the progression I would expect is *ˈkaʔ.kah > *ˈkaɣʲ.ka > *ˈka.ɣʲi.ka
https://frislander.tumblr.com/

First known on here as Karero

User avatar
Raholeun
Sanci
Sanci
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 7:30 am
Location: sub omnibus canonibus

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Raholeun »

Frislander wrote:Voiceless vowels almost always occur adjacent to voiceless consonants, and that's what conditions them, not the absence of stress, status as an epenthetic vowel or similar.
So instead of turning the glottal stop into a voiced velar fricative (*kaɣʲ.ka), a voiceless one (*kaxʲ.ka) might cause the following epenthetic vowel to become voiceless (ˈka.xʲi̥.ka), is that correct?
language LNK. cover

Astraios
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 2974
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:38 am
Location: Israel

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Astraios »

Frislander wrote:the idea that Greek "balsam" must necessarily represent a lateral fricative is stupid: it's cognate with Arabic /basam/ "pleasantness", a correspondence which gives Proto-Semitic *š rather that *ś, so it should have therefore been /ʃ/ in Hebrew as well which was just badly transcribed because Greek as you should well know had no consistent method of writing /ʃ/, so there's n reason to suppose that the lambda is really indicative of anything
If anything, this argument is “stupid”. It seems to rest on the fallacy that Proto-Semitic roots are perfectly stable. There are countless roots over whose original consonants the daughter languages disagree, e.g. *ṭ reconstructed for one language might correspond to *t for another, and *š corresponding to *ś is also attested. As Kath said, it’s much tidier to assume a perfectly expectable irregular sound change in either Proto-Canaanite or Proto-Arabic than to assume that a Greek lambda-sigma combination (which is in itself a quite sensible way to represent /ɬ/!) is meaningless when it’s representing a Hebrew consonant which is known to correspond to historic laterals elsewhere, and when /ʃ/ is consistently written in Greek with a plain sigma.
Frislander wrote:Well that does depend on whether you actually think that Proto-Semitic should be reconstructed with laterals in the first place, which I don't.
But why not? And what do you propose instead?

User avatar
Frislander
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 836
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 6:34 am
Location: The North

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Frislander »

Raholeun wrote:
Frislander wrote:Voiceless vowels almost always occur adjacent to voiceless consonants, and that's what conditions them, not the absence of stress, status as an epenthetic vowel or similar.
So instead of turning the glottal stop into a voiced velar fricative (*kaɣʲ.ka), a voiceless one (*kaxʲ.ka) might cause the following epenthetic vowel to become voiceless (ˈka.xʲi̥.ka), is that correct?
Yes, that would be fine, and frankly I would have expected that assimilation to begin with, where a voiced fricative from a glottal stop would devoice before voiceless stops.
Astraios wrote:
Frislander wrote:Well that does depend on whether you actually think that Proto-Semitic should be reconstructed with laterals in the first place, which I don't.
But why not? And what do you propose instead?
Lateral fricatives should not be reconstructed because there are no straightforward correspondances between the supposed lateral fricatives reconstructed based on Central Semitic and the ones found in the daughter languages that actually have them (South Arabian; SA laterals correspond with Central Semitic dentals and Ethiopian Semitic affricates), and because it completely ignores Ethiopian Semitic, the largest and most diverse branch of Semitic. You might possibly get away with reconstructing them for Central Semitic but even then I think you're on shaky ground.
https://frislander.tumblr.com/

First known on here as Karero

Astraios
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 2974
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:38 am
Location: Israel

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Astraios »

I don’t see how the fact that most modern Semitic languages have non-lateral reflexes of *ś impacts its reconstruction as a lateral at all… Most IE languages don’t have voiced aspirates, but PIE is reconstructed with them (or something very like them). Anyway, you haven’t brought any evidence or sources yet, so forgive me if I remain unconvinced.

User avatar
KathTheDragon
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2139
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
Location: Brittania

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by KathTheDragon »

What Astraios said. All you're doing is shouting very loudly, against people who are actually trying to support their point.

User avatar
Frislander
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 836
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 6:34 am
Location: The North

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Frislander »

https://lateralfricative.wordpress.com/

Also
Astraios wrote:Most IE languages don’t have voiced aspirates, but PIE is reconstructed with them (or something very like them).
Really? You think that reconstruction's on firm enough ground to serve as an adequate counterexample?
https://frislander.tumblr.com/

First known on here as Karero

Dē Graut Bʉr
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 593
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 3:03 pm
Location: Nijmegen, Netherlands

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Dē Graut Bʉr »

Frislander wrote:
Astraios wrote:Most IE languages don’t have voiced aspirates, but PIE is reconstructed with them (or something very like them).
Really? You think that reconstruction's on firm enough ground to serve as an adequate counterexample?
Regardless of whether the series traditionally reconstructed as voiced aspirated was in fact voiced aspirated, PIE clearly had a stop series which most modern IE languages lack. So yes, this does work as a counterexample.

User avatar
KathTheDragon
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2139
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
Location: Brittania

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by KathTheDragon »

Frislander wrote:Really? You think that reconstruction's on firm enough ground to serve as an adequate counterexample?
While you may be utterly infatuated with the glottalic theory, it's diachronically simpler for at least the final phase of PIE to have in fact had breathy-voiced stops in at least some dialects. Almost all of the specific claims in favour of glottalised stops of some variety can be refuted, so there really is no issue with this reconstruction.

User avatar
Frislander
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 836
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 6:34 am
Location: The North

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Frislander »

KathTheDragon wrote:
Frislander wrote:Really? You think that reconstruction's on firm enough ground to serve as an adequate counterexample?
While you may be utterly infatuated with the glottalic theory, it's diachronically simpler for at least the final phase of PIE to have in fact had breathy-voiced stops in at least some dialects. Almost all of the specific claims in favour of glottalised stops of some variety can be refuted, so there really is no issue with this reconstruction.
Surprisingly enough I'm not infatuated by the glottalic theory, in fact I would probably prefer a reconstruction which has neither breathy stops nor glottalics quite frankly. Are you really so caught up in your ruts that you think that those are the only two possibilities? However given the choice I would prefer the glottalic theory given that the evidence for the "voiced" stops having that quality comes from multiple different branches of the family and more general reconstructed phonotactic constraints, while the evidence for breathy voiced stops is just that Indo-Aryan has them and some dialects of Armenian. I'm not dogmatically gonna say that's the only reconstruction I will take though because it is entirely possible that someone else might hit on a much better reconstruction which requires neither of these two series.
https://frislander.tumblr.com/

First known on here as Karero

Post Reply