Sound Change Quickie Thread

[Nortaneous]

Arve develops a postalveolar affricate (although it's apical ʈ͡ʂ, not laminal t͡ʃ) from plosive+/r/ clusters and /rt͡s/. English and Sicilian did something similar, but only with alveolar+/r/.

[cybrxkhan]

Alright, thanks for the replies.

I'm also figuring out how a stop + /l/ could arise, i.e., /kl/ and /tl/ (like the stereotypical Aztec/Nahuatl /tl/). In conjunction with this, I'm thinking of having /ɺ/ evolving into both /l/ and /ɹ/ (or /l/ and /ɾ/, it's not too important right now). How plausible is the scenario below?

/ɺ/ --> /l/, if the /ɺ/ was in a consonant cluster with a stop. i.e., /tɺ/ --> /tl/
/ɺ/ --> /l/ if the /ɺ/ is the coda of a syllable. i.e., /taɺ/ --> /tal/, /iɺ/ --> /il/
/ɺ/ --> /ɹ/ in all other situations, i.e. /ɺa/ --> /ɹa/

Again, thanks for the help.

[finlay]

It works... but [l] and [ɹ] there are still in complementary distribution and wouldn't be called phonemes. You would need to find a way to introduce a situation where they contrast, such as making it L in consonant clusters but then dropping the plosive, so tɺ → tl → l or something. This is also plausible. I find that there's very little that's truly implausible if you're jumping from one side of the IPA table to another. You can argue any which way you like. If you need citations it's a bit more tricky but most simple sounding sound changes you can think of have been spied somewhere in the world.

However, some are more likely than others, of course, and if I were you I'd swap L and R round in this case, to get tɺ → tɾ or something, and derive L the other way. if that makes sense.

[Jetboy]

As for the voiced aspirates > voiced > voiceless thing, that's pretty well attested; check out Grimm's Law, the first sound change of the Germanic branch of PIE.

[cybrxkhan]

It works... but [l] and [ɹ] there are still in complementary distribution and wouldn't be called phonemes. You would need to find a way to introduce a situation where they contrast, such as making it L in consonant clusters but then dropping the plosive, so tɺ → tl → l or something. This is also plausible. I find that there's very little that's truly implausible if you're jumping from one side of the IPA table to another. You can argue any which way you like. If you need citations it's a bit more tricky but most simple sounding sound changes you can think of have been spied somewhere in the world.

However, some are more likely than others, of course, and if I were you I'd swap L and R round in this case, to get tɺ → tɾ or something, and derive L the other way. if that makes sense.

I see... What if, instead of /ɾ/ or /ɹ/ I had the retroflex flap, /ɽ/? I.e.:

/ɺ/ --> /l/, if the /ɺ/ was in a consonant cluster with a stop. i.e., /tɺ/ --> /tl/
/ɺ/ --> /l/ if the /ɺ/ is the coda of a syllable. i.e., /taɺ/ --> /tal/, /iɺ/ --> /il/
/ɺ/ --> /ɽ/ in all other situations, i.e. /ɺa/ --> /ɽa/


Or perhaps can I have /ɺ/ --> /l/ along with something like /f/ --> /ɹ/ or some other sort of fricative like /f/? (i.e. moving down the sonority hierarchy)

Would both of these be too rare a type of thing to happen, or are they reasonably plausible?

Thanks for the help, again!

[Bristel]

I've asked this before in other places, but is /sʷ/ → /ɸ/ plausible?

I'm asking because I'd like to get rid of some labialized consonants in daughterlangs, and I'd like to have a realistic change to /ɸ/ or /f/.

[Mbwa]

Yeah.

[Ser]

ʃ ʂ x χ / [V -front]_

This change doesn't sound too implausible; Spanish had something similar, though it only went to /x/.

Nope, it did go all the way to [χ] in some areas e.g. Madrid and Lima.

[Jetboy]

Nope, it did go all the way to [χ] in some areas e.g. Madrid and Lima.

Isn't x χ fairly common, if there aren't uvulars? Or at least x~χ?

[finlay]

It works... but [l] and [ɹ] there are still in complementary distribution and wouldn't be called phonemes. You would need to find a way to introduce a situation where they contrast, such as making it L in consonant clusters but then dropping the plosive, so tɺ → tl → l or something. This is also plausible. I find that there's very little that's truly implausible if you're jumping from one side of the IPA table to another. You can argue any which way you like. If you need citations it's a bit more tricky but most simple sounding sound changes you can think of have been spied somewhere in the world.

However, some are more likely than others, of course, and if I were you I'd swap L and R round in this case, to get tɺ → tɾ or something, and derive L the other way. if that makes sense.

I see... What if, instead of /ɾ/ or /ɹ/ I had the retroflex flap, /ɽ/? I.e.:

/ɺ/ --> /l/, if the /ɺ/ was in a consonant cluster with a stop. i.e., /tɺ/ --> /tl/
/ɺ/ --> /l/ if the /ɺ/ is the coda of a syllable. i.e., /taɺ/ --> /tal/, /iɺ/ --> /il/
/ɺ/ --> /ɽ/ in all other situations, i.e. /ɺa/ --> /ɽa/

Or perhaps can I have /ɺ/ --> /l/ along with something like /f/ --> /ɹ/ or some other sort of fricative like /f/? (i.e. moving down the sonority hierarchy)

Would both of these be too rare a type of thing to happen, or are they reasonably plausible?

Thanks for the help, again!

I just meant I think /tr/ is more common than /tl/; it doesn't really matter what flavour of R you use (but maybe this is english bias).... So your original one was fine, I just think it's more likely to have /tr/ and /la/. (to be clear: by /r/ i mean [r], [ɾ], [ɹ], [ɽ], [ɻ], [ʀ], whatever)

[finlay]

Nope, it did go all the way to [χ] in some areas e.g. Madrid and Lima.

Isn't x χ fairly common, if there aren't uvulars? Or at least x~χ?

yeah. i've decided i find [χ] easier than [x], anyway. Nortaneous said once that it's common in Scotland to have [χ] in whichever words have it, although I thought I'd picked it up after staying in Holland (where they definitely have [χ]... it was often trilled too).

[cybrxkhan]

I just meant I think /tr/ is more common than /tl/; it doesn't really matter what flavour of R you use (but maybe this is english bias).... So your original one was fine, I just think it's more likely to have /tr/ and /la/. (to be clear: by /r/ i mean [r], [ɾ], [ɹ], [ɽ], [ɻ], [ʀ], whatever)

Ah, okay. I was just trying to get the /tl/ because I wanted the daughter language to have elements a bit like some Aztec-esque language (Tlatlpaza, Atlcah, Tlateleco, etc. etc.), but I also wanted an /r/ for some reason.

Anyhow, I'm thinking maybe I'll do /ɺ/ --> /l/ and /f/ --> /ɹ/, which will be easier to handle. Does anyone know if the latter one is possible in a real world language?

[finlay]

That's more unlikely given that they don't share any features (like place, voicing, manner), but you could do it with an intermediary, for instance f → v → ʋ → ɹ (ɹ → ʋ is happening in some English dialects, so the reverse shouldn't be implausible either). But then the question is whether this messes up more stuff.

I think you should go with your first option, but you'll have to then have tl→l in order to get a contrast between L and R.

[cybrxkhan]

That's more unlikely given that they don't share any features (like place, voicing, manner), but you could do it with an intermediary, for instance f → v → ʋ → ɹ (ɹ → ʋ is happening in some English dialects, so the reverse shouldn't be implausible either). But then the question is whether this messes up more stuff.

I think you should go with your first option, but you'll have to then have tl→l in order to get a contrast between L and R.

Hmm. Or I guess I could just drop R altogether and just have L (i.e., /ɺ/ --> /l/) but no R at all, and have some dialects realize L as R in certain situations or something perhaps due to foreign influence, and let that cause some transliteration errors.

On the other hand, if I'm trying to get a phoneme that has similar features to /ɹ/, besides getting that from /ʋ/ (which isn't that bad an option for my case, actually...) would any of these be possible?

/s/ --> /ɹ/
/ɰ/ --> /ɹ/
/w/ --> /ɹ/


Thank again for taking the time to answer my questions.

[roninbodhisattva]

/s/ --> /ɹ/
/ɰ/ --> /ɹ/
/w/ --> /ɹ/
Thank again for taking the time to answer my questions.

/s/ > /z/ > /ɹ/
/ɰ/ > /ɹ/ (yes)
/w/ > /ɰ/ > /ɹ/

I suppose you might wanna do the velar and /w/ through something like /ʁ/ or /ʀ/, but I don't think that's totally necessary.

[Ser]

Nope, it did go all the way to [χ] in some areas e.g. Madrid and Lima.

Isn't x χ fairly common, if there aren't uvulars? Or at least x~χ?

I suppose so. Now that you mention that, I've never heard a Spanish speaker having [x] for /x/ exclusively, they generally use [h] only, [χ] only, [x] and [h], or [x] and [χ], hmmm... I've heard that in Russian (or the standard at least), the /x/ is really [x] without a uvular allophone, but again, I've only heard of it, no reliable source.

[Nortaneous]

Yeah, my guess is that if there's just one back fricative, it'll expand to fill up most of that space. German /x/ expanded to cover palatal to uvular, and Finnish /x/ apparently goes even further, from palatal to pharyngeal.

[Nortaneous]

Is /t_w/ /k/ plausible as part of a loss of contrastive labialization?

[Mbwa]

Is /t_w/ /k/ plausible as part of a loss of contrastive labialization?

Uh, do you think the labialized consonants could develop some sort of u~w offglide? Then the velarization could spread to the t.

[roninbodhisattva]

Is /t_w/ /k/ plausible as part of a loss of contrastive labialization?

You could go through something like /t_w/ > /k_w/ > /k/. Seems reasonable enough.

[Nortaneous]

Is /t_w/ /k/ plausible as part of a loss of contrastive labialization?

Uh, do you think the labialized consonants could develop some sort of u~w offglide? Then the velarization could spread to the t.

How about an onglide? I have VCʷ Vu̯Cʷ Vu̯C.

Also, what would happen to sʷ? I guess I could have it x, since I already have x h, but then I'd need another source of x that wouldn't have the offglide; /qʰ q/, maybe?

...In case it's not obvious, I'm trying to go from Kannow, which has 39 consonants (edit: actually 41; forgot to include the glottals in the chart (edit2: are glottal stops necessary for ejectives in the same way that h is necessary for aspirates? if not, I'm dropping it)), to Tharu, which has 12. Although the ejectives are getting merged with the lenis stops, so that gets rid of 11 consonants right there. Also, the aspirated consonants will be lost in most positions and reanalyzed as plosive+h clusters.

Code: Select all

pʰ   tʰ   tʷʰ            ʈʂʰ  cçʰ  kʰ   kʷʰ   qʰ   qʷʰ    
p    t    tʷ    s    sʷ  ʈʂ   cç   k    kʷ    q    qʷ    
pʼ   tʼ   tʷʼ   tsʼ  tsʷʼʈʂʼ  cçʼ  kʼ   kʷʼ   qʼ   qʷʼ    
m    n    nʷ                  ɲ    ŋ    ŋʷ    
                              j         w    

Code: Select all

p t k
  s x
m n ŋ
  r j h
  l

...bah, guess I have to work out that Hathic substrate to make this shit easier

[Mbwa]

How about an onglide? I have VCʷ Vu̯Cʷ Vu̯C.

u̯C ɰC Cˠ (and in this case tˠ k) ?

Also, what would happen to sʷ? I guess I could have it x, since I already have x h, but then I'd need another source of x that wouldn't have the offglide; /qʰ q/, maybe?

If you're trying to get to the Tharu inventory below... maybe you could have the same progression as above happen to sʷ, except, when it is sˠ, shift to plain s, maybe through ʂ or, or just a plain loss of velarization or something?

[tezcatlip0ca]

/s/ --> /ɹ/
/ɰ/ --> /ɹ/
/w/ --> /ɹ/
Thank again for taking the time to answer my questions.

/s/ > /z/ > /ɹ/
/ɰ/ > /ɹ/ (yes)
/w/ > /ɰ/ > /ɹ/

I suppose you might wanna do the velar and /w/ through something like /ʁ/ or /ʀ/, but I don't think that's totally necessary.

Or through bunched R. I know that's only in English, but to me [R] to [r\] is only plausible with bunched R as an middle step.

[Nortaneous]

clusters to derive prestress /ɣ/ from?

[dhok]

clusters to derive prestress /ɣ/ from?

Perhaps [g G] + a rhotic, g+ h, just plain g?