Sound Change Quickie Thread

[Pole, the]

1. I'm not sure.
2. This looks ok.
3. This one as well.

[Pogostick Man]

I don't see why 2 is so implausible. R. Whitney Tucker ("Chronology of Greek Sound Changes", 1969) gives *j > h as having occurred from PIE to Greek.

[tezcatlip0ca]

1. pt kt > tʷ tʲ > tsʷ tɕ > tʂ tɕ
2. Cj Cw > Cç Cxʷ > Cx > Ch
3. I don't think this sound change is realistic, but you could have diphthong metathesis on a case-by-case basis, that is, a different path for each diphthong.
aj ej aw ow > æi ei ɑu ou > ɛə eː ɔə uː > eɐ ie oɐ uo > ja je wa wo

[Click]

Is unconditional PN → ⁿP plausible?

P and N is shorthand for plosive and nasal, and ⁿ is prenasalisation.

[Pazmivaniye]

Is unconditional PN → ⁿP plausible?

P and N is shorthand for plosive and nasal, and ⁿ is prenasalisation.

I've been dealing with the same thing for Niljavo. I think it is, but one might expect differences if you have multiple plosive series.

[Cedh]

Is unconditional PN → ⁿP plausible?

P and N is shorthand for plosive and nasal, and ⁿ is prenasalisation.

Not really. I remember reading a paper a while back which claimed a sound change like this to be impossible because there's supposedly no way the feature [+nasal] would be able to jump across the plosive without being lost. "Impossible" might be too rigid, but the only way I can see PN → ⁿP happening would be something like tn → ʔn → nˀ → nʔ → nɗ → nd → nt → ⁿt, and I can only imagine this between vowels. (And if you start with a non-homoorganic cluster, the POA of the resulting plosive would likely be different, e.g. tm → ʔm ... → ⁿp.)

[Click]

I think the change could be achieved by metathesis intervocalically and word-finally, but a more difficult case is with word-initial PN clusters. Could an epenthetic [ə̆] appear before all consonant clusters, allowing for metathesis to occur without violating the sonority hierarchy, and then delete?

[WeepingElf]

Though I consider myself a fairly seasoned diachronist, I need some ideas.

I am currently thinking about a descendant of Proto-Eteonoric, which undergoes a consonant shift:

*th > ts / (n,l,r)_
*th > s / most other contexts
*t > th
*d > t

wherein /th/ stands for an aspirated stop. The labial and velar series change accordingly. My question, however, is, what to do with the affricates? *dz > c and *c > ch are straightforward enough, but what with *ch? (Here, /c/ = /ts/. Accordingly with the postaleveolars.)

Any ideas? Thank you in advance.

[Cedh]

Any ideas? Thank you in advance.

The most straightforward option would seem to be:
*ch *čh > ts tʃ / (n,l,r)_
*ch *čh > s ʃ / elsewhere

This would of course merge the reflexes of *th and *ch. If you don't want that, you could have *th lenite to dental non-sibilants tθ ~ θ instead.

Another option would be to move *dz *c *ch to something slightly palatalised before the above MOA chain shift, so that e.g.
*d *t *th > t tʰ ts~s
*dz *c *ch > tsʲ tsʲʰ tsʲ~sʲ
*dž *č *čh > tʃ tʃʰ tʃ~ʃ

Extending this last idea, if you're feeling adventurous you could shift the *c *č series to something like tʃ tʃʷ (etc.). The labialised series could then (a) stay as it is, (b) develop into retroflexes, (c) lose its affrication to become tʷ etc., (d) shift to labiovelars (probably through tʃʷ > tʷ > kʷ) or (e) become fully labial.

[WeepingElf]

Any ideas? Thank you in advance.

The most straightforward option would seem to be:
*ch *čh > ts tʃ / (n,l,r)_
*ch *čh > s ʃ / elsewhere

This would of course merge the reflexes of *th and *ch. If you don't want that, you could have *th lenite to dental non-sibilants tθ ~ θ instead.

Those mergers are OK. *ch and *čh are not particularly frequent in the protolanguage.

At the same time, I feel a bit uneasy about *c > ch and *č > čh. I want to get rid of the aspirated affricates; at least, **pfh and **kxh do not occur in East Thannu (the provisional name of my language). But I am not yet sure about the target inventory.

Another option would be to move *dz *c *ch to something slightly palatalised before the above MOA chain shift, so that e.g.
*d *t *th > t tʰ ts~s
*dz *c *ch > tsʲ tsʲʰ tsʲ~sʲ
*dž *č *čh > tʃ tʃʰ tʃ~ʃ

Extending this last idea, if you're feeling adventurous you could shift the *c *č series to something like tʃ tʃʷ (etc.). The labialised series could then (a) stay as it is, (b) develop into retroflexes, (c) lose its affrication to become tʷ etc., (d) shift to labiovelars (probably through tʃʷ > tʷ > kʷ) or (e) become fully labial.

Nice ideas. I don't know whether I shall use them, though.

[Nortaneous]

*tʰ > ts̻ / (n,l,r)_
*tʰ > s̻ / most other contexts
*t > tʰ
*d > t

*tsʰ tšʰ > ts̺ tš / (n,l,r)_
*tsʰ tšʰ > s̺ š / most other contexts
*ts tš > s̺ʰ šʰ > x ç, or h h, or s̺ š with s̺ š > z̺ ž, or s̺ š + attracting stress, or just s̺ š
*dz dž > ts̺ tš

then you could do l or r > 0 / _ts̻ so you get the apical/laminal contrast in the affricates too, or leave ts̻ as an allophone of s̻

I'm assuming you don't want aspirated affricates? Proto-Basque may be relevant here -- pervasive fortis/lenis contrast where it's voiceless/voiced in the stops but affricate/fricative in the sibilants

[WeepingElf]

*tʰ > ts̻ / (n,l,r)_
*tʰ > s̻ / most other contexts
*t > tʰ
*d > t

*tsʰ tšʰ > ts̺ tš / (n,l,r)_
*tsʰ tšʰ > s̺ š / most other contexts
*ts tš > s̺ʰ šʰ > x ç, or h h, or s̺ š with s̺ š > z̺ ž, or s̺ š + attracting stress, or just s̺ š
*dz dž > ts̺ tš

then you could do l or r > 0 / _ts̻ so you get the apical/laminal contrast in the affricates too, or leave ts̻ as an allophone of s̻

I'm assuming you don't want aspirated affricates? Proto-Basque may be relevant here -- pervasive fortis/lenis contrast where it's voiceless/voiced in the stops but affricate/fricative in the sibilants

Nice ideas. I want to get rid of aspirated affricates, and definitely don't want aspirated fricatives. I think I'll just merge *dz and *dž with *ts and *tš, and have *tsh and *tšh go to ts and *tš where stops become affricates, and to s and š where stops become fricatives.

I know that this involves a lot of mergers, though. Your idea of maintaining a dental/alveolar contrast has something to it; I should consider it.

Then, there is a sort of "mirror image" of East Thannu: West Thannu, an Alpianic language. It descends from this, and develops new affricates from the palatalization of stops preceding /i/ in hiatus with another vowel:

*ti > ts /_V
*thi > ts /_V ?
*tsi > ts /_V ?
*si > s /_V

*ki > tš /_V
*khi > tš /_V ?
*kxi > tš /_V ?
*xi > š /_V

Again, a lot of mergeroo, hence the question marks. This can, as in East Thannu, be mitigated by invoking a third POA for the coronals.

I imagine the two Thannu languages to form a small Sprachbund; thannu means 'ibex' in both (an Eteonoric loanword in Alpianic) - the ibex was a totem animal for these two peoples, the two languages have exchanged a lot of vocabulary, and the phonologies are planned to be similar.

EDIT: I imagine an obstruent inventory like this for the two Thannu languages:

Plain stops: p t k
Aspirated stops: ph th kh
Affricates: pf ts tś tš kx
Fricatives: f s ś š x h

But I am not sure.

[Nortaneous]

Your idea of maintaining a dental/alveolar contrast has something to it; I should consider it.

Apical/laminal, like Basque s/z.

[WeepingElf]

Your idea of maintaining a dental/alveolar contrast has something to it; I should consider it.

Apical/laminal, like Basque s/z.

I see.

[WeepingElf]

Meanwhile, I am considering adding two aspirated affricates, tśh and tšh, to the obstruent inventory common to the two Thannu languages. This reduces the number of necessary mergers a lot.

So, I'd get for East Thannu:

*tsh > ś/tśh
*ts > tśh
*dz > ts

Similar for the hushing affricates (e.g., *tš > tšh).

And for West Thannu:

*ti > *tś /_V
*thi > *tśh /_V
*tsi > tś /_V
*si > ś /_V

Similar for the velars (e.g., *kxi > tš).

[Cúlro]

Is unconditional PN → ⁿP plausible?

P and N is shorthand for plosive and nasal, and ⁿ is prenasalisation.

Not really. I remember reading a paper a while back which claimed a sound change like this to be impossible because there's supposedly no way the feature [+nasal] would be able to jump across the plosive without being lost. "Impossible" might be too rigid, but the only way I can see PN → ⁿP happening would be something like tn → ʔn → nˀ → nʔ → nɗ → nd → nt → ⁿt, and I can only imagine this between vowels. (And if you start with a non-homoorganic cluster, the POA of the resulting plosive would likely be different, e.g. tm → ʔm ... → ⁿp.)

Huautla Mazatec has prenasalised onsets and nasalised vowels, and the onsets have been analysed as being underlyingly nasalised rather than prenasalised - the nasalisation is realised before the consonant to avoid being mistaken for nasalisation of the vowel.* Similarly there is a language (name slips my mind at present) in which voiceless nasals are realised as prestopped voiceless nasals - to maximise perceptual distance from voiced nasals.

If your lang contrasts nasal and oral vowels after these stop-nasal clusters, you could analyse it as the nasal feature (and possibly also labialisation, palatalisation and velarisation) being transferred to the consonant and then surfacing as prenasalisation to maximise contrast between nasalised onset + oral vowel and plain onset + nasal vowel (if labialisation/palatalisation/velarisation transfer too they can realise in the usual way).


*Huautla Mazatec also has a glottalisation and breathy contrast on both vowels and onsets, which pattern in the same way as nasalisation. They had previously been analysed as contrastive pre- and post- glottalisation/aspiration with plain vowels, and prenasalisation contrasting with nasal vowels, but the analysis I described is superior for several reasons: the "post"-aspiration and glottalisation are usually realised on the vowel not the consonant offglide; it makes all three of nasalisation, glottalisation and aspiration pattern the same way (previously there was a gap where post nasalisation should be); the language generally prohibits sequences with shared features, so positing the three secondary articulations as contrastively being attached to either onset or vowel but not both, and being realised in such a way to make clear which is the case fits with other aspects of its phonology.

[CatDoom]

So I've been tinkering with a set of sound changes, and at present the resulting phonology allows only plain stops as syllable codas. Does anyone know if this is an attested phonotactic rule? I'm a little worried that I'm violating some kind of universal.

[Cúlro]

Can't think of an example, but having plain stops and some form of sonorants (eg nasals) is very common - you could justify it by a sound change from that? Maybe final sonorants devoice and disappear, or vocalise further.

[Nortaneous]

Iau only allows /p/ in the coda, but Iau is Iau.

[----]

Doesn't Inuktitut only allow stops and /n/? I'd say it's reasonable

[CatDoom]

Can't think of an example, but having plain stops and some form of sonorants (eg nasals) is very common - you could justify it by a sound change from that? Maybe final sonorants devoice and disappear, or vocalise further.

That's actually part of what I did; it seems to be more common, however, for less-sonorous coda consonants to be lost first, like in Mandarin. It does look like a number of Inuit languages allow only stops word-finally, so I won't worry about it.

[Click]

Is {[p] [t] [k]}[l] → [tɬʷ] → [tʂ] plausible?

[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?

[Bristel]

Is {[p] [t] [k]}[l] → [tɬʷ] → [tʂ] plausible?

Latin had planum → Portuguese chão and clavis → chave, so I think yes, but I'm not sure about the intermediate step…

[Cedh]

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]