zompist bboard

Most of it looks fine to me, but I have a bit of trouble buying /n̪ˤ/ > /ŋ/. Why not /n/ > /ɲ/, /n̪ˤ/ > /n/. If you don't like /ɲ/, it could easily become /j/ or even /ŋ/.

What if I make it /n̪ˤ/ > /ɲ/ >/ŋ/?

Knit Tie wrote:What if I make it /n̪ˤ/ > /ɲ/ >/ŋ/?

The likelihood of a pharyngeal spontaneously palatalizing strikes me as extremely unlikely, since they're essentially opposite processes (cf. how pharyngeal spreading has a tendency to be blocked by palatals, sibilants, and high vowels). /n̪ˤ/ > /n̪/ > /ɲ/ >/ŋ/ could possibly work, though, and would still leave /n/ intact; it's not exactly in harmony with your other changes, though. Another thought: /n̪ˤ/ > /ʕ/ > /ʔ/ > /ŋ/. This one is a bit of a stretch and YMMV, but I think it makes more sense than spontaneous palatalization at any rate.

apologies for not using your transcription ... i might have to edit this later on a mobile phone where not all of the IPA's show up... underdot means dental, and i've lowered the pharyngeal sign to a full size letter.

÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷

As usual I recommend using conditional changes. I think it would be feasible for ṇʕ to shift to /ŋ/ when adjacent to a back vowel or certain consonants, and remain a dental otherwise, possibly later merging with /n/. It would resist palatalization and therefore you'd have original ṇʕ > /n, ŋ/ depending on environmental conditions, and original n > /nʲ, n/ depending on different conditions. That is, the two would have different outcomes when either velarization or palatalization was triggered, and merge only when neither of those conditions occurred.

÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷
other options:
1) One of my conlangs has a similar phonology, and Im considering /ṇʕ/ > /ð/ *un*conditionally, on the basis that I think a dental sound would tend to be more likely to turn into an affricate. I dont always rely on natural precedent for my sound changes , though, so ... if you want a naturalistic outcome, "do as I say, not as I do".

2) Mess with the vowels a bit ... it's well known that phayryngealized consonants have a tendency to drag vowels around, usually towards the back and (i think?) sometimes lowered .... so perhaps the phars generated a whole new series of vowels, with /i ɛ u / developing new variants when adjacent to a pharyngeal and /ɑ/ being fronted when *not* adjacent to a phrayngeal .... and if eight vowels is far too many to play with, these vowels could quickly merge back down to a smaller number, perhaps even recreating the original four-vowel setup but with a bit of musical chairs. This suggestion could be combined with one of the above.

3) Develop labial-velars /kp) gb) ŋm)/ from the pharyngealized labials instead of retainign them as such or merging into the plain form. Or, make them labial affricates ... at least the oral ones.

4) Find your most troublesome consonant and shift it to /Ø/.

Firstly, thanks a lot, people!

Now, honestly, /n̪ˤ/ isn't really a big deal, I'm okay with just nerging it with /n/. I'm more concerned about the labials - what I'm trying to do, you see, is imitate both Modern Standard Arabic, which preserved its historical consonants, but changed some of them into something entirely different, i.e. Ḍād, and Polish, which lost its entire secondarily articulated series, by taking the proto language phonology and eliminating everything pharyngealised while keeping the number of consonants as high as possible. So far, I'm happy with the alveolars, less happy with the postalveolars and absolutely at lost what to do with /pˤ/ and the like. Labial-velars sound nice, but I'd rather not overload the phonology with weird consonants. Maybe debuccalise the emphatic labials?

Vowels, on the other hand, are not really important. I'll shuffle some of them around, but I'd rather keep the existing square system, especially since it seems rather stable and permissive to allophones to me.

Easiest thing to do with the pharyngealized labials is merge them with the plain labials.

Another option would be to lenite the plain labials (P > F) and let the pharyngealized labials become plain labials.

And I really have no problem buying any sort of Cˤ > ʕ, and /ʕ/ is a phoneme that is really prone to become something else, especially if it's your only pharyngeal. Turn it into a glottal stop, merge it with /ʁ/, delete it outright, etc.

As a corollary to the above, here's another idea:
mˤ > ʋ
pˤ > ɸˤ > ħ
bˤ > βˤ > ʕ OR bˤ > βˤ > ʋ
fˤ > ħ
vˤ > ʕ OR vˤ > ʋ

didn't Middle Chinese have pj > f? p_?\ p > p f sounds fine to me

I see - I guell I'll just debuccalise the pharyngealised plosives, then, thanks!

I have another question, though - If I wish to add another plosive series to my final phonology's voiced-unvoiced ones, how could I obtain it without involving pharyngealisation? The conlang at that point has plenty of bi- and tri-consonantal clusters in all positions.

This is the updated diachronica so far:
/m mˤ n n̪ˤ/
/p pˤ b bˤ t t̪ˤ d d̪ˤ k g q (ʔ)/
/f fˤ v vˤ s s̪ˤ z z̪ˤ ʃ ʃˤ ʒ ʒˤ χ ʁ h ħ ʕ/
/l l̪ˤ ɾ ɾ̪ˤ/
/w j/
/i ɛ u ɑ/

t̪ˤ > t̪ˢˤ > ts̪ˤ
d̪ˤ > d̪ᶻˤ > dz̪ˤ
pˤ > ɸˤ > ħ or Ø in coda
bˤ > βˤ > ʋˤ
fˤ > ħ or Ø in coda
vˤ > ʋˤ
ʃ ʃˤ ʒ ʒˤ > ɬ > s̪
s > ʃ
z > ʒ
s̪ˤ > s̪
z̪ˤ > z̪
t > t̪
d > d̪
g > ʁ
rˤ > ʒˤ > ʒ
l̪ˤ > ɮ̪ˤ > l

I'm also thinking of turning /ʃˤ/ /ʒˤ/ into /ɬ̪ˤ/ and then into /tɬ~ɬ/ (while the plain /ɬ/ merges with /s̪/) and doing the same thing with /l̪ˤ/ to get /dɮ~ɮ/, but I'd rather avoid kitchen sinkiness. How overused in conlangs are lateral fricatives?

Is it possible for /ʡ ħ/ to shift to the uvular side of things without merging with velars?

I think so, but that would still make the language very unusual, as phonologies with a functional velar-uvular distinction in fricatives are very few and far between.

Knit Tie wrote:I see - I guell I'll just debuccalise the pharyngealised plosives, then, thanks!

I have another question, though - If I wish to add another plosive series to my final phonology's voiced-unvoiced ones, how could I obtain it without involving pharyngealisation? The conlang at that point has plenty of bi- and tri-consonantal clusters in all positions.

Cː > Cʼ
Cʔ > Cʼ
ʔC > C[+implosive] > Cʼ

That's one possibility, if ejectives work for you. Cː > Cʰ~ʰC also works.

Knit Tie wrote:I'm also thinking of turning /ʃˤ/ /ʒˤ/ into /ɬ̪ˤ/ and then into /tɬ~ɬ/ (while the plain /ɬ/ merges with /s̪/) and doing the same thing with /l̪ˤ/ to get /dɮ~ɮ/, but I'd rather avoid kitchen sinkiness. How overused in conlangs are lateral fricatives?

Can't comment on conlangs, but lateral obstruents are rarer than lateral approximants--but not so much I'd call them "kitchen sink" material. That being said, /ɮ/ contrasting with /l/ is pretty rare, and /ɬ/ seems to be more common than its voiced counterpart. Lateral obstruents can also be an areal feature; they're common in the PNW, for example.

Actually, I think that I'll keep the two plosive series - the conlang is supposed to be heavily influenced by Modern Standard Arabic, and that only has voiced-unvoiced distinction. I'll also get rid of phonemic lateral fricatives diachronically, after all, one of my goals with this conlang was to create something that is not overloaded with unusual phonemes, which is also why I don't have dental fricatives here, and as for the areal features, I've already got one in the shape of pharyngeals and uvulars. That said, would it be possible to have /ɮ/ and /ɬ/ as positional allophones of /l/? That'd give me some very unusual and distinctive phonetic features, although I'm not sure what positions should cause /l/ to fortition in this way. Perhaps /ɬ/ when in a cluster with /s/ and /ʃ/ or preceding /t/ and /ts/ and /tɬ/ when following /t/ and /ts/ and the same thing with voiced alveolars for /ɮ/? It'll be clear that it's still a cluster, phonemically, because it'll only be found intervocalically, in the only place where clusters are allowed.

Knit Tie wrote:I think so, but that would still make the language very unusual, as phonologies with a functional velar-uvular distinction in fricatives are very few and far between.

Is this really the case? It's very areal, for sure, but there's a heck of a lot of North American languages in the PNW with this distinction in fricatives.

I have a conlang which contrasts /ɹ̥ ɹ r̥ r l̥ l/, but only syllable-initially and after /s/ (which doesn't have a phonemic voicing contrast, but /sɹ̥ sɹ sr̥ sr sl̥ sl/ [sɹ̥ zɹ sr̥ zr sl̥ zl] phonetically). What are some interesting things I can do with the voiceless liquids besides just merging them with their voiced counterparts? (I solemnly swear /l̥/ /ɬ/ is attested somewhere, but I'm less sure about the rhotics. Would /ɹ̥ r̥/ /h t/ be plausible, maybe?)

Porphyrogenitos wrote: Is this really the case? It's very areal, for sure, but there's a heck of a lot of North American languages in the PNW with this distinction in fricatives.

PNW languages are known for their elaborate and gigantic consonant systems, so if you have a language with a lot of consonant phonemes, it could work. Generally speaking, the more consonants you have, the more faint phonetic distinctions, like /x/ vs. /x̣/, you can make phonemic, so velar-uvular distinction in fricatives is not really a stretch if you have a Salishan-esque conlang with a ton of other velars and uvulars, but for something like Arabic, another famous haven of pharyngeals, with a mostly empty dorsal consonant inventory, it'd be weird to not have uvular and velar fricatives merge quite fast.

StrangerCoug wrote:I have a conlang which contrasts /ɹ̥ ɹ r̥ r l̥ l/, but only syllable-initially and after /s/ (which doesn't have a phonemic voicing contrast, but /sɹ̥ sɹ sr̥ sr sl̥ sl/ [sɹ̥ zɹ sr̥ zr sl̥ zl] phonetically). What are some interesting things I can do with the voiceless liquids besides just merging them with their voiced counterparts? (I solemnly swear /l̥/ /ɬ/ is attested somewhere, but I'm less sure about the rhotics. Would /ɹ̥ r̥/ /h t/ be plausible, maybe?)

Voiceless /l/ turning into a lateral fricative is not only attested, it's more or less the standard diachronic fate of this phoneme if it doesn't revoice, so go for it. As for /ɹ̥ r̥/> /h t/, that also sounds perfectly plausible to me, in fact, I cannot think of much else you could do with these phonemes aside from maybe turning /ɹ̥/ into /ʃ/ or /ʂ/.

But if you want to go for some weird and unusual sound changes, you could fortition voiced liquids and have the voiceless ones replace them: /l r ɹ/ > /d ɖ ʐ/, then /l̥ r̥ ɹ̥/ > /l r ɹ/. Or if you want to be boring, you could just remove all liquids after /s/ and have it split into /s/ and /z/, the latter of which you could rhotacise later into /r/ or /ɹ/.

Porphyrogenitos wrote:

Knit Tie wrote:I think so, but that would still make the language very unusual, as phonologies with a functional velar-uvular distinction in fricatives are very few and far between.

Is this really the case? It's very areal, for sure, but there's a heck of a lot of North American languages in the PNW with this distinction in fricatives.

And not just those either, it's also common as muck in the north Caucasus (surprise surprise) and is also a feature of some the languages of the Gran Chaco in South America, like Maka and Abipón. Essentially don't worry about it, you're on safe ground. Heck, we apparently have an example of a language that distinguishes pharyngeals and epiglottals (Aghul), so really this isn't the most "out-there" distinction you can make.

Frislander wrote:

Porphyrogenitos wrote:

Knit Tie wrote:And not just those either, it's also common as muck in the north Caucasus (surprise surprise) and is also a feature of some the languages of the Gran Chaco in South America, like Maka and Abipón. Essentially don't worry about it, you're on safe ground. Heck, we apparently have an example of a language that distinguishes pharyngeals and epiglottals (Aghul), so really this isn't the most "out-there" distinction you can make.

The northern Caucasian languages fit neatly into the "crapload of consonants" archetype, but some of the Gran Chaco languages, it seems, have moderately-sized consonant inventories with a robust velar vs. uvular distinction and soundly disprove my point. So go for it, Porphyrogenitos, you can now safely say that A Natlang Already Did it, Except Worse.

velar-uvular fricative contrasts also occur in Seri, and are common in the Qiangic languages and probably in the Tibetan dialects of Sichuan and Yunnan as well

For a bit of context, <nk ng> assimilate into [ŋ] word-finally and preceding a word-final [ɑ o u] in Intergalactic Standard. If this would create minimal pairs, the words retain their former <nk ng> spellings, as opposed to the shortened <n> spellings of unpaired words. Would [ni→ɲ] preceding a word-final [ɑ o u] be a logical progression as well?

It sounds like he's asking about having a language with uvular fricatives but no uvular stops, which I'm not sure is actually attested. It seems to be a European trait to have the fricative(s) without the stops, but in those European languages there are either no contrasting clear fricatives, or the fricatives span both poa's.

I have the PHOIBLE data in a postgres db, so I can search for anything that has both /x/ and /X/ but not any phoneme whose IPA representation contains /q/. Here's what I get:

Seri
Dime
ORMURI
Banjun
North Junín Quechua (San Pedro de Cajas dialect)
Yaru Quechua

That's accurate for Seri. Dime checks out based on PHOIBLE's data -- there are no uvulars that my bad SQL didn't pick up. I'm not going to check the other inventories because their web app froze.

edit: Is Wakhi /q/ inherited, or does it only exist in loans? Also Spanish

Soap wrote:It sounds like he's asking about having a language with uvular fricatives but no uvular stops, which I'm not sure is actually attested. It seems to be a European trait to have the fricative(s) without the stops, but in those European languages there are either no contrasting clear fricatives, or the fricatives span both poa's.

...Your own post proves otherwise: uvular fricatives without uvular stops are indeed attested, even if only in a handful of European prestige dialects.

No, my conlang will have /q X/, I'm just not sure how easily pharyngeals can spontaneously become uvular without merging into velars a la Hebrew, especially /ʡ/ which under most circumstances would probably become a glottal stop or elide.

Huh? When did pharyngeals merge into velars in Hebrew? Didn't /ʕ/ become a glottal stop and /ħ/ become /x/ for most speakers? Also, apparently, Georgian Jews(?) pronounce /ʕ/ as [q'].