Sound Change Quickie Thread

[Zaarin]

Does #tl > #kl seem reasonable?

Definitely. /(t)ɬ/ regularly gets borrowed into English as /kl/, viz. Klamath (from ɬamaɬ) or Tlingit /kliŋkɪt/ or (in retcon) Klingon (from tlhIngan).

[RafaoliaKalanganana]

In the history of English there was a change whereby [ð] <> [d] in the vicinity of <r>. Thus, fader > father, but murther > murder. In effect, <th> and <d> switched places with each other in the same environment. I was wondering how this was possible and what the intermediary steps were, if any.

Sort of stupid, but maybe dental /ð/ harmonized with /r/ to shift into a more alveolar position, i.e. /d/?

[RafaoliaKalanganana]

Also, could anyone tell me whence came the Old Prussian nominative ending *-an or *-n? Old Prussian assaran (meaning lake) corresponds to Lithuanian ežeras (with a circumflex accent on the first syllable,) Polish jezioro, and Russian ozero. The word appears to have originated from Proto-Balto-Slavic *ezera-, but I think it is only in the accusative that there is an ending *-n.

Was it a simple shift of s > n? Analogy?

[spanick]

In the history of English there was a change whereby [ð] <> [d] in the vicinity of <r>. Thus, fader > father, but murther > murder. In effect, <th> and <d> switched places with each other in the same environment. I was wondering how this was possible and what the intermediary steps were, if any.

I seem to recall reading that the change from ME fader to father was influenced by analogy to brother and mother. Similarly, murder may have been influenced by Anglo-Norman murdre which ultimately comes from the same root. Another word that fits this is burden which was byrþen in OE, but it's worth noting that byrden was also a variant even in OE. Another counter example would be worth, which never fortified.

Also, I would not say that fader > father and murther > murder are the same environment...one is _Vr and the other is r_...the latter is much more "in the vicinity" of r than the former.

[Pole, the]

Also, could anyone tell me whence came the Old Prussian nominative ending *-an or *-n? Old Prussian assaran (meaning lake) corresponds to Lithuanian ežeras (with a circumflex accent on the first syllable,) Polish jezioro, and Russian ozero. The word appears to have originated from Proto-Balto-Slavic *ezera-, but I think it is only in the accusative that there is an ending *-n.

Was it a simple shift of s > n? Analogy?

I thought at least some Slavic neutrers ending in -o, come from PIE nouns in *-om (which could easily lead into Prussian *-an)?

[Zju]

Where do the voiced clusters in the Greek words hebdomad and ogdoad come from? Im not really expecting anyone to have the answer, since if it was known it'd probably be in the etymology on Wiktionary. Im just idly wondering. If I had to make a guess at it myself, I'd say its probably borrowing from a dialect which for some reason coined these two words and then gave them to the other dialects. Also seems it may have happened in smaragdos "emerald" although no older form seems to be attested since it's a loanword.

Maybe it's connected to Slavic *sedmŭ ← PIE *septmós?

I think that's likely the case. Recall that the PIE word for seven is likely borrowed from a semitic language close to Ancient Egyptian, or even Proto-Semitic or Proto-Akkadian. The Russian article on PIE numerals gives that source form as *šab'(at) or *sabátum respectively. PIE for seven was *septm̥, but for all what we know that could just have been the most common form; a few PIE dialects could have borrowed it with voice assimilation in the other direction, as *sebdm̥ (or more likely *sebʰdʰm̥, due to the root constraint). Or it could have been *septm̥ for cardinal and *sebʰdʰm̥- for ordinal and different languages leveling the voicing in different ways.

Is ʔ → h or h → ʔ attested outside IE? Without onset only positions, that is.

[Frislander]

Is ʔ → h or h → ʔ attested outside IE? Without onset only positions, that is.

Ojibwe has h → ʔ from Proto-Algonquian (except in a few dialects).

[Zaarin]

a semitic language close to Ancient Egyptian

I was under the impression that most Semiticists agreed that, within Boreoafroasiatic, Berber and Semitic are more closely related than either is to Egyptian.

[WeepingElf]

a semitic language close to Ancient Egyptian

I was under the impression that most Semiticists agreed that, within Boreoafroasiatic, Berber and Semitic are more closely related than either is to Egyptian.

AFAIK, the opinions differ, though many Afrasianists place Berber, Egyptian and Semitic together in a northern group; and it seems weird to me that Berber and Semitic should be more closely related to each other than to Egyptian, which geographically sits right in the middle between Berber and Semitic.

[Zaarin]

a semitic language close to Ancient Egyptian

I was under the impression that most Semiticists agreed that, within Boreoafroasiatic, Berber and Semitic are more closely related than either is to Egyptian.

AFAIK, the opinions differ, though many Afrasianists place Berber, Egyptian and Semitic together in a northern group; and it seems weird to me that Berber and Semitic should be more closely related to each other than to Egyptian, which geographically sits right in the middle between Berber and Semitic.

That was my thought as well, and I think Egyptologists tend to posit a Berber-Egyptian grouping within Boroafroasiatic. Perhaps the safest conclusion given this difference of opinion is that they are equidistant...

[hwhatting]

Also, could anyone tell me whence came the Old Prussian nominative ending *-an or *-n? Old Prussian assaran (meaning lake) corresponds to Lithuanian ežeras (with a circumflex accent on the first syllable,) Polish jezioro, and Russian ozero. The word appears to have originated from Proto-Balto-Slavic *ezera-, but I think it is only in the accusative that there is an ending *-n.

Was it a simple shift of s > n? Analogy?

I thought at least some Slavic neutrers ending in -o, come from PIE nouns in *-om (which could easily lead into Prussian *-an)?

Yes, Prussian is supposed to have kept the neuter gender, while Eastern Baltic (=Lithuanian and Latvian) turned all neuters into male nouns. So the problem is not the ending -(a)n in Prussian, but whether -o in Slavic is a regular outcome of PIE *-om.

[Zju]

Also, could anyone tell me whence came the Old Prussian nominative ending *-an or *-n? Old Prussian assaran (meaning lake) corresponds to Lithuanian ežeras (with a circumflex accent on the first syllable,) Polish jezioro, and Russian ozero. The word appears to have originated from Proto-Balto-Slavic *ezera-, but I think it is only in the accusative that there is an ending *-n.

Was it a simple shift of s > n? Analogy?

I thought at least some Slavic neutrers ending in -o, come from PIE nouns in *-om (which could easily lead into Prussian *-an)?

Yes, Prussian is supposed to have kept the neuter gender, while Eastern Baltic (=Lithuanian and Latvian) turned all neuters into male nouns. So the problem is not the ending -(a)n in Prussian, but whether -o in Slavic is a regular outcome of PIE *-om.

According to Kortlandt, PIE *-om changed early on to *-od in PSl, due to influence from pronominal neuter, which later regularly gives -o. Such influence from pronominal to nominal paradigms is also attested in North Germanic.

[hwhatting]

Yes, Prussian is supposed to have kept the neuter gender, while Eastern Baltic (=Lithuanian and Latvian) turned all neuters into male nouns. So the problem is not the ending -(a)n in Prussian, but whether -o in Slavic is a regular outcome of PIE *-om.

According to Kortlandt, PIE *-om changed early on to *-od in PSl, due to influence from pronominal neuter, which later regularly gives -o. Such influence from pronominal to nominal paradigms is also attested in North Germanic.

Yes, this is one of the theories. But there are other accounts. There are 4 options for what happened to PIE final *-os and *-om in Slavic:
1) Both become -o. In that case, the Nom. & Acc. Sg. of the o-stems in -ъ and the 1st sg. in -ъ in the past tense need to be explained.
2) Both become -ъ. In that case the neuters in -o need to be explained, as well as the -o in the NA Sg. of the neuter s-stems (from PIE *-os).
3) *-os becomes -ъ, *-om becomes -o. In that case, the Acc. Sg. of the o-stems is anaological to the Nom. Sg, but 1st sg. in -ъ in the past tense still needs to be explained, and the -o in the NA Sg. of the neuter s-stems needs to be explained as somehow influenced by the o-stem neuters / neuter pronouns.
4) *-om becomes -ъ, *-os becomes -o. In that case the neuters in -o need to be explained; the Nom. Sg. of the o-stems would be analogical to the Acc. Sg. There are some indications for an older Nom. Sg. in -o (the "honorific" forms of names in -o like Mikhailo, patronymicals like Milo-š-).
I've seen all four being posited in the literature; the classical handbooks I know mostly have 2). I personally go with 4). In both cases, the explanation you quote from Kortlandt (he didn't come up with it, it's much older) is usually given; plus it is assumed that some PIE neuter o-stems became males, depending on the accent class. I also have seen the ending Slavic -o being compared to neuters in -a that are supposed to exist in Anatolian.

[Richard W]

{[w] [j]} → [h] / C_

No justification in general, but historically Latin to Spanish has gone half-way along tj > th. Affrication of /tw/ is known from Greek.

Vj Vw → jV wV

It's awfully like Gandhari metathesis Vr > rV, so I think it might happen.

[Pogostick Man]

{[w] [j]} → [h] / C_

No justification in general, but historically Latin to Spanish has gone half-way along tj > th. Affrication of /tw/ is known from Greek.

I'll go one further, that looks plausible to me just on its face. I'm pretty sure I've at least seen *j → h before.

[Pole, the]

{[w] [j]} → [h] / C_

No justification in general, but historically Latin to Spanish has gone half-way along tj > th. Affrication of /tw/ is known from Greek.

Reminds me of {Cj} → {Cːj} → {Cː} in Germanic.

[Richard W]

{[w] [j]} → [h] / C_

No justification in general, but historically Latin to Spanish has gone half-way along tj > th. Affrication of /tw/ is known from Greek.

I'll go one further, that looks plausible to me just on its face. I'm pretty sure I've at least seen *j → h before.

*j → h is Greek. However, it's the conditioning that is unusual, and indeed, in the environment C_, PIE *j did not develop into Greek aspiration.

[KathTheDragon]

{[w] [j]} → [h] / C_

No justification in general, but historically Latin to Spanish has gone half-way along tj > th. Affrication of /tw/ is known from Greek.

I'll go one further, that looks plausible to me just on its face. I'm pretty sure I've at least seen *j → h before.

*j → h is Greek. However, it's the conditioning that is unusual, and indeed, in the environment C_, PIE *j did not develop into Greek aspiration.

Actually, It's PIE *Hy that becomes Greek aspiration, and more probably developed via *ç, not *j

[Zju]

Yes, Prussian is supposed to have kept the neuter gender, while Eastern Baltic (=Lithuanian and Latvian) turned all neuters into male nouns. So the problem is not the ending -(a)n in Prussian, but whether -o in Slavic is a regular outcome of PIE *-om.

According to Kortlandt, PIE *-om changed early on to *-od in PSl, due to influence from pronominal neuter, which later regularly gives -o. Such influence from pronominal to nominal paradigms is also attested in North Germanic.

Yes, this is one of the theories. But there are other accounts. There are 4 options for what happened to PIE final *-os and *-om in Slavic:
1) Both become -o. In that case, the Nom. & Acc. Sg. of the o-stems in -ъ and the 1st sg. in -ъ in the past tense need to be explained.
2) Both become -ъ. In that case the neuters in -o need to be explained, as well as the -o in the NA Sg. of the neuter s-stems (from PIE *-os).
3) *-os becomes -ъ, *-om becomes -o. In that case, the Acc. Sg. of the o-stems is anaological to the Nom. Sg, but 1st sg. in -ъ in the past tense still needs to be explained, and the -o in the NA Sg. of the neuter s-stems needs to be explained as somehow influenced by the o-stem neuters / neuter pronouns.
4) *-om becomes -ъ, *-os becomes -o. In that case the neuters in -o need to be explained; the Nom. Sg. of the o-stems would be analogical to the Acc. Sg. There are some indications for an older Nom. Sg. in -o (the "honorific" forms of names in -o like Mikhailo, patronymicals like Milo-š-).
I've seen all four being posited in the literature; the classical handbooks I know mostly have 2). I personally go with 4). In both cases, the explanation you quote from Kortlandt (he didn't come up with it, it's much older) is usually given; plus it is assumed that some PIE neuter o-stems became males, depending on the accent class. I also have seen the ending Slavic -o being compared to neuters in -a that are supposed to exist in Anatolian.

Well, I prefer the second option, it has the least to explain:
-о in neut NA.SG comes form *-od, as already stated; as for -o of s-stems NA.SG, s-stems were a small and unproductive class in PSl. and being neuters, they were influenced by -o stem neuters. Such switch from stem based to gender based declension only became more prominent in Slavic languages as time went on.
I doubt quite a lot Acc. Sg. would influence Nom. Sg. - those two cases are almost never conflated in Slavic languages (when they are, it's only in the plural, and since when? The middle ages IIRC), and even if they were, it would rather be in the opposite direction, as Nom. is more frequent.

[Nortaneous]

Affrication of /tw/ is also known from German, e.g. dwarf~Zwerg, (Dutch) dwingen~zwingen; however, thwart~quer, (Polish) twaróg~Quark.

[Élerhe]

how possible/common is VnV>VrV ?

[Zaarin]

how possible/common is VnV>VrV ?

Any alternation of n~l~r is common as dirt in any position.

[RafaoliaKalanganana]

What are some ways in which vowel retroflexion or r-colored vowels can develop?
Is a sound change where the central component of a diphthong shifts to an ɻ-like sound plausible? Example: aɪ̩ > æə̯ >æɻ~ɛɻ (which would then merge with ɔɻ~ɔ˞.)

Continuing in that vein, what are some examples of diphthongs turning into vowel+consonant sequences (or where one of its components changed into a consonant)? I know Greek had something like ew, aw > ev av, and I vaguely remember reading about some sound change in a Turkic language where ø > og, but I'm not so sure if my memory is accurate.

EDIT: comma placement (y)

[Zju]

Are retroflex vowels as distinct from rhotacised vowels a thing? As in, the tongue is pulled back, but not curled up.

[KathTheDragon]

Yes, Prussian is supposed to have kept the neuter gender, while Eastern Baltic (=Lithuanian and Latvian) turned all neuters into male nouns. So the problem is not the ending -(a)n in Prussian, but whether -o in Slavic is a regular outcome of PIE *-om.

According to Kortlandt, PIE *-om changed early on to *-od in PSl, due to influence from pronominal neuter, which later regularly gives -o. Such influence from pronominal to nominal paradigms is also attested in North Germanic.

Yes, this is one of the theories. But there are other accounts. There are 4 options for what happened to PIE final *-os and *-om in Slavic:
1) Both become -o. In that case, the Nom. & Acc. Sg. of the o-stems in -ъ and the 1st sg. in -ъ in the past tense need to be explained.
2) Both become -ъ. In that case the neuters in -o need to be explained, as well as the -o in the NA Sg. of the neuter s-stems (from PIE *-os).
3) *-os becomes -ъ, *-om becomes -o. In that case, the Acc. Sg. of the o-stems is anaological to the Nom. Sg, but 1st sg. in -ъ in the past tense still needs to be explained, and the -o in the NA Sg. of the neuter s-stems needs to be explained as somehow influenced by the o-stem neuters / neuter pronouns.
4) *-om becomes -ъ, *-os becomes -o. In that case the neuters in -o need to be explained; the Nom. Sg. of the o-stems would be analogical to the Acc. Sg. There are some indications for an older Nom. Sg. in -o (the "honorific" forms of names in -o like Mikhailo, patronymicals like Milo-š-).
I've seen all four being posited in the literature; the classical handbooks I know mostly have 2). I personally go with 4). In both cases, the explanation you quote from Kortlandt (he didn't come up with it, it's much older) is usually given; plus it is assumed that some PIE neuter o-stems became males, depending on the accent class. I also have seen the ending Slavic -o being compared to neuters in -a that are supposed to exist in Anatolian.

5) *-os and *-om both suffered raising in Proto-Balto-Slavic under the stress