zompist bboard

Vijay wrote: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'].

Well, not into velar, but with them, such that there isn't a/x/ (except when /k/ is lenited in some dialects) nor /ħ/ anymore but instead /X/.

Intergalactic Standard and Baikal have merged [ʁ ɹ l] into [ʟ̠]. What effect would that have on [ɬ]? According to this chart, the resulting change doesn't have a letter and may be completely unattested. Also, [r] has merged into [ʀ] due to the loss of [ɹ].

I doubt [ʟ̠] is stable as a phoneme anyway. It probably shift to a velar and pair with /ʟ̝̊/

I likewise highly doubt [ʟ̠] would exist for long, and question the likelihood of a sound change that would produce it in the first place. Same thing with its voiceless fricative counterpart.

Okay. Then, the merger will have been [ɹ l ʟ→ʁ].

Reposting the following because the original was lost in the shuffle of another conversation:
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?

yangfiretiger121 wrote:Okay. Then, the merger will have been [ɹ l ʟ→ʁ].

Reposting the following because the original was lost in the shuffle of another conversation:
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?

ni > ɲ is not exactly the sort of sound change one needs to justify. Palatalization before high front vowels needs no excuse.

Is it possible to somehow turn palatals into retroflexes, or vice versa?

Knit Tie wrote:Is it possible to somehow turn palatals into retroflexes, or vice versa?

Alveolopalatals have become retroflexes in various Slavic languages.

Travis B. wrote:

Knit Tie wrote:Is it possible to somehow turn palatals into retroflexes, or vice versa?

Alveolopalatals have become retroflexes in various Slavic languages.

Are those true retroflexes, though? As far as I know, Slavic retroflex fricatives are just apical postalveolar.

Machvano Vlax Romani has /t͡ʃʰ/ > [ʈr] and /d͡ʒ/ > [ɖr].

Palatals became apical postalveolar in Mandarin, and Slavic has apical postalveolars as outcomes of palatalizing sound changes.

Aren't true retroflexes very rare outside Dravidian? And do they ever contrast with apical postalveolars?

A voiceless velar lateral fricative is attested in a few languages in New Guinea. As for where to go from there, Hiw developed gL\) from *r and is currently merging it into G, so L\_0 L\ > x G seems reasonable. But you wouldn't have so many consonants merging into velar laterals, much less postvelar. Maybe K l > s` r\, r\ > L\; could also have s` > L\_0.

Nortaneous wrote:do they ever contrast with apical postalveolars?

Yes.

Nortaneous wrote: Aren't true retroflexes very rare outside Dravidian? And do they ever contrast with apical postalveolars?

True, subapical palatal retroflexes are also found almost everywhere in Australian aboriginal languages, where they happily contrast with apical alveolars and laminal palatals.

To continue bothering people with my conlang, would you say that /ʕ/ and /ʁ/ merging together into /ɰ/, which then subsequently becomes /ə̯/ in coda to form centralising diphthongs is plausible? Also, how can you turn /ʃ/ and /ʒ/ into /s̪/ through an intermediate without using /ɬ/, and what can you do with /ɫ̪ˤ/ and /ɾ̪ˤ/ that isn't too outlandish aside from merging them with regular liquids?

Is the dental flap a variant of the coronal, always pharyngealizedm? I think that the pharyngealization would stick around longer than the dental articulation.


Spanish did something very similar with its sibilants....
The palatal sibilants turned into apical sounds, which skipped past the alveolar sound and into the dental.

÷÷÷÷÷




Neither my phone nor my pc is capable of adding "pharyngealization " to its dictionary, I'm guessing it hits a limit of number of letters. Sorry for persistent typos.

The dental flap is indeed a variant of the coronal, and I'm trying to get rid of the pharyngealised series as a whole.

As for the postalveolars, I'm afraid simply shifting them to /s̪/ won't work, as I'm trying to, essentially, have /s/ and /ʃ/ switch places. Or did you mean something else by that Spanish example?

Knit Tie wrote:Also, how can you turn /ʃ/ and /ʒ/ into /s̪/ through an intermediate without using /ɬ/

Well, as far as plausability goes, no intermediate necessary. Devoicing /ʒ/ > /ʃ/ is extremely plausible; /ʃ/ > /s̪/ is also extremely plausible. If you want /ʃ/ and /s/ to switch places, how about this:

/s/ > /s̠/ > /ʃ/ (pretty certain this is attested in some languages in the American Southwest)
/ʃ ʒ/ > /s̪/

s > θ (Zhuang, Turkmen, Burmese)
ʃ > s
θ > ʃ (Biblical Hebrew)

Nortaneous wrote:s > θ (Zhuang, Turkmen, Burmese)
ʃ > s
θ > ʃ (Biblical Hebrew)

This looks nice, Nort, but I'm not sure if I can exclude the dental /s̪ˤ/ from this change, as I'd like to do. Perhaps I could go with something like this?

s̪ˤ > θ
ʃ > s̻
s > s̺ > ʃ
s̻ > s
θ > s

Knit Tie wrote:

Nortaneous wrote:s > θ (Zhuang, Turkmen, Burmese)
ʃ > s
θ > ʃ (Biblical Hebrew)

This looks nice, Nort, but I'm not sure if I can exclude the dental /s̪ˤ/ from this change, as I'd like to do. Perhaps I could go with something like this?

s̪ˤ > θ
ʃ > s̻
s > s̺ > ʃ
s̻ > s
θ > s

So your ultimate goal is that s > ʃ, s̪ˤ ʃ > s? What you posite works, but I think it can be done more simply.

s > s̺ > ʃ
ʃ > s (no intermediate necessary, widely attested)
s̪ˤ > s

Zaarin wrote: So your ultimate goal is that s > ʃ, s̪ˤ ʃ > s? What you posite works, but I think it can be done more simply.

s > s̺ > ʃ
ʃ > s (no intermediate necessary, widely attested)
s̪ˤ > s

So two phonemes can simply switch like that? Without merging?

Knit Tie wrote:

Zaarin wrote: So your ultimate goal is that s > ʃ, s̪ˤ ʃ > s? What you posite works, but I think it can be done more simply.

s > s̺ > ʃ
ʃ > s (no intermediate necessary, widely attested)
s̪ˤ > s

So two phonemes can simply switch like that? Without merging?

Note the intermediate step of s̺.

[Redacted for further discussion in my inventory questions topic.]

Knit Tie wrote:So two phonemes can simply switch like that? Without merging?

I think something like that might have happened in some Eastern Indo-Aryan language varieties with [s] vs. [ʃ].

apparently Mandan did that