zompist bboard

I wasn't entirely sure where to post this, so I hope this will do.

Some time ago there was this thing that everyone was making future versions of existing languages, and I tried something with Dutch, as that is a language I speak well. I've been working on it on and off since then, which is to say I have been trying to come up with a satisfying set of sound changes. Recently I've redone those, and I'm wondering if anyone here would have a look at them and share their opinions. I've tried to come up with a set of naturalistic changes to reduce the complexity of consonant clusters, but I'm not sure if I succeeded. Some of my main concerns are the following:
-There are a lot of unconditioned changes, are there too many?
-Am I having too many changes that specifically focus on consonant cluster reduction?
-I change word initial and word final /s/ to /t/ at some point, filling a gap left by earlier /t/ (in the changes below I call this S-hardening). Is this excusable?
-I would also like some idea's on the approximate time span I came up with, is it anywhere near a reasonable estimate?
You may notice I've borrowed some interesting changes from other people on the board (think for example kn/ŋ/_ in relation to Germanic languages). The inspiration was/is much appreciated.

So far I haven't worked out anything else. No paradigms or syntactic changes or anything; I first want the sound changes done.

I first provide a list of definitions for the sound changes, then the sound changes in more or less chronological order (enough to order feeding and bleeding etc. changes correctly) providing dates indicating approximate completion of the changes. Finally there is a word list (mostly the swadesh list of Dutch as presented on Wikipedia, but with slightly altered transcription) with existing Dutch words and their forms as changed by the sound changes.

To provide some context I also added an analysis of the current 'phoneme' inventory of Dutch, and the inventory that emerges after the changes.

Definitions

C=ptkqʔbdgfsχhvzɬmnŋʋlʀ
V=iɪeɛyʏøəauoɔɑɨɘəʌæœ
L=ɨɘɘɜɨɘɘɔauoɔɔ
R=iɪɪɛyʏʏəauʊɔɑ
M=eøoiyu
A=ptkqbdgfsχhɬmnŋ
O=ptkqʔbdgfsχhvzɬ
F=fsχ
S=psq
N=mnŋ
D=bdg

Changes
change year
(technical change for getting transcription right)
ː//_

Changes complete in (some varieties of) current Dutch (but not normally transcribed as such)
n//ə_#
χ//s_ʀ
t//O_s

Liquid induced vowel lengthening (change in progress in northern Standard Dutch)
/ː/M_ʀ

œʏ/ɜː/_lC
œʏ/ɜː/_l#

æɪ/ɜː/_lC
æɪ/ɜː/_l#

ʌʊ/ɔː/_lC
ʌʊ/ɔː/_l#

V/L/_lC
V/L/_l#
V/R/_(ː)ʀ

ʀ/ː/_C
ʀ/ː/_#

l/ː/_C
l/ː/_#

ː//_ː

e/əː/_ʋ
i/ɨː/_ʋ

Loss of voicing contrast in fricatives (Change in progress in much of the Netherlands, and in some dialects [I consider ɣ/χ/_ to be complete already, although that's not true for everyone])
v/f/_
z/s/_

L-vocalisation (Advanced but hypothetical stage of current L-vocalisation in northern Dutch)
l/u/a_C
l/u/a_#

l/ː/u_C
l/ː/u_#

l/ː/o_C
l/ː/o_#

l/ː/ɔ_C
l/ː/ɔ_#

Coda liquid loss (Found in some people's speach for ʀ already)
l//_C
l//_#

ʀ//_C
ʀ//_#

ʋ//_C
ʋ//_# 2100

Fricative-Liquid coalescence (First completely made up change, I wanted to get ɬ)
fl/ɬ/_
sl/ɬ/_
χl/ɬ/_

fʀ/χ/_
sʀ/χ/_
χʀ/χ/_
ʋʀ/χ/_

Final devoicing made official (This one's actually over a thousand years old already, but needed to get the following changes working out correctly)
d/t/_#
d/t/_A
b/p/_#
b/p/_A

T-weakening (all further changes are completely made up, unless noted otherwise)
t/ʔ/#_V
t/ʔ/V(ː)_#
t/ʔ/V(ː)_V

S-hardening
s/t/#_V
s/t/V(ː)_#
ts/t/_

Heavy cluster reduction
p//s_l
p//s_ʀ
t//s_ʀ 2250

Mid high vowel diphthongisation (Well, this one is chronologically rather off, many if not most people have this already)
ø/øy/_
e/ei/_
o/ou/_

Diphthong lowering
ʌʊ/au/_
æɪ/ai/_
œʏ/ay/_

Centralisation of front rounded vowels
øy/ɘɨ/_
y/ɨ/_
ʏ/ɘ/_

Obstruent deletion
O//s_V

Nasal assimilation
kn/ŋ/_
fn/m/_
sn/n/_
χn/ŋ/_ 2350

Plosive weakening
pl/b/_
bl/ʋ/_
pʀ/b/_
bʀ/ʋ/_
tʀ/d/_
dʀ/l/_
tʋ/d/_
dʋ/l/_
kʀ/g/_
kʋ/g/_
kl/g/_

Harmonising vowel shift (as in, nicely filling out the vowel space, getting a nicely symmetrical vowel system)
ɪ/e/_
ɔ/o/_
ʊː/oː/_
ɑː/a/_
ɑ/ɔ/_
aː/a/_
ɜː/aː/_ 2500

Fricative hardening (introduces [q])
F/S/_s(t)#
F/S/_s(t)#

Denasalisation
N/D/_s(t)#
N/D/_s(t)#

Unstressed vowel shortening (what the name says, the change indicated doesn't properly achieve this, so I'll have to tweak by hand)
əː/ə/_
Vː/V/V(ː)C_# 2600

Nasal cluster reduction
mp/b/_
mb/mm/_
nt/d/_
nd/nn/_
ŋk/g/_

Obstruent nasalisation
O/m/m_
O/n/n_
O/ŋ/ŋ_

Obstuent cluster reduction
s//O_#
t//O_#
O/t/_O
O/t/t_
t//_t 2750

Word list
ɪk → ek
jæɪ → jai
hæɪ → hai
y → ɨ
ʋæɪ → ʋai
jʏli → jɘli
zæɪ → tai
dezə → deisə
dɪt → deʔ
di → di
dɑt → dɔʔ
hiːʀ → hiː
daʀ → da
ʋi → ʋi
ʋɑt → ʋɔʔ
ʋaʀ → ʋa
ʋɑneːʀ → ʋɔne
hu → hu
nit → niʔ
ɑlə → ɔlə
veːl → fɘː
ɛŋkələ → ɛgələ
sɔməχə → toməχə
ʋæɪnəχ → ʋainəχ
ɑndəʀ → ɔnnə
en → ein
tʋe → dei
dʀi → li
viːʀ → fiː
væɪf → faif
zɛs → tɛt
zevən → teifə
ɑχt → ɔχ
neχən → neiχə
tin → ʔin
χʀot → χouʔ
lɑŋ → lɔŋ
bʀed → ʋeiʔ
ʋæɪd → ʋaiʔ
dɪk → dek
zʋaʀ → sʋa
hevəχ → heifəχ
klæɪn → gain
kɔʀt → koːʔ
smɑl → smoː
dʏn → dɘn
vʀʌʊ → χau
mɑn → mɔn
mɛns → mɛd
kɪnd → ked
ɛχtχənot → ɛtχənouʔ
mudəʀ → mudə
vadəʀ → fadə
diːʀ → diː
vɪs → fet
voχəl → fouχo
hɔnd → hod
lœʏs → laɨt
slɑŋ → ɬɔŋ
ʋɔʀm → ʋoːm
bom → boum
ʋʌʊd → ʋaut
stɔk → sok
fʀœʏt → χaɨʔ
vʀʏχt → χɘχ
zad → taʔ
blɑd → ʋɔʔ
ʋɔʀtəl → ʋoːʔo
sχɔʀs → soːt
blum → ʋum
χʀɑs → χɔt
tʌʊ → ʔau
koːʀd → koːt
hœʏd → haɨʔ
vles → ɬeit
blud → ʋuʔ
ben → bein
vɛt → fɛʔ
æɪ → ai
hoːʀn → hoːn
staʀt → saʔ
veːʀ → feː
haʀ → ha
hofd → houf
kɔp → kop
oːʀ → oː
oχ → ouχ
nøs → nɘɨt
mɔnd → mod
tɑnd → ʔɔd
tɔŋ → ʔoŋ
vɪŋəʀnaχəl → feŋənaχo
vut → fuʔ
kni → ŋi
hɑnd → hɔd
vløχəl → ɬɘɨχo
bœʏk → baɨk
dɑʀmən → damə
nɛk → nɛk
ʀʏχ → ʀɘχ
bɔʀst → boːs
hɑʀt → haʔ
levəʀ → leifə
dʀɪŋkən → legə
etən → eiʔə
bæɪtən → baiʔə
zœʏχən → taɨχə
spyχən → sɨχə
bʀakən → ʋakə
adəmən → adəmə
lɑχən → lɔχə
zin → tin
hoːʀən → hoːʀə
ʋetən → ʋeiʔə
dɛŋkən → dɛgə
ʀœʏkən → ʀaɨkə
vʀezən → χeisə
slapən → ɬapə
levən → leifə
stɛʀvən → sɛːfə
dodən → doudə
vɛχtən → fɛtə
jaχən → jaχə
slan → ɬan
ʀakən → ʀakə
knɪpən → ŋepə
snæɪdən → naidə
splæɪtən → slaiʔə
stekən → seikə
kʀɑbən → gɔbə
χʀavən → χafə
zʋɛmən → sʋɛmə
vliχən → ɬiχə
lopən → loupə
stɑpən → sɔpə
komən → koumə
lɪχən → leχə
zɪtən → teʔə
stan → san
dʀajən → lajə
vɑlən → fɔlə
χevən → χeifə
hʌʊdən → haudə
knæɪpən → ŋaipə
ʋʀæɪvən → ʀaifə
ʋɑsən → ʋɔsə
veχən → feiχə
tʀɛkən → dɛkə
dyʋən → dɨʋə
ʋɛʀpən → ʋɛːpə
χoːjən → χoujə
vɑstmakən → fɔtmakə
bɪndən → bennə
najən → najə
tɛlən → ʔɛlə
zɛχən → tɛχə
zɪŋən → teŋə
spelən → seilə
zʋevən → sʋeifə
vlujən → ɬujə
vʀizən → χisə
zʋɛlən → sʋɛlə
zɔn → ton
man → man
stɛʀ → sɛː
ʋatəʀ → ʋaʔə
ʀeχən → ʀeiχə
ʀiviːʀ → ʀifi
meːʀ → meː
ze → tei
zʌʊt → taut
sten → sein
zɑnd → tɔd
stɔf → sof
aʀdə → adə
ʋɔlk → ʋoːk
mɪst → mes
nevəl → neifo
lʏχt → lɘχ
heməl → heimo
ʋɪnd → ʋed
sneːʋ → nə
æɪs → ait
ʀok → ʀouk
vyːʀ → fɨː
ɑs → ɔt
bʀɑndən → ʋɔnnə
ʋɛχ → ʋɛχ
bɛʀχ → bɛːχ
ʀod → ʀouʔ
χʀun → χun
χeːl → χɘː
ʋɪt → ʋeʔ
zʋɑʀt → sʋaʔ
nɑχt → nɔχ
dɑχ → dɔχ
jaʀ → ja
ʋɑʀm → ʋam
kʌʊd → kaut
vɔl → foː
niʋ → nɨː
ʌʊd → aut
χud → χuʔ
slɛχt → ɬɛχ
ʀɔt → ʀoʔ
vœʏl → faː
ʀɛχt → ʀɛχ
ʀɔnd → ʀod
sχɛʀp → sɛːp
stɔmp → sob
bɔt → boʔ
χlɑd → ɬɔʔ
nɑt → nɔʔ
dʀoχ → louχ
jœʏst → jaɨs
kɔʀɛkt → koʀɛk
dɪχtbæɪ → detbai
vɛʀ → fɛː
ʀɛχts → ʀɛq
lɪŋks → leg
an → an
bæɪ → bai
ɪn → en
mɛt → mɛʔ
ɛn → ɛn
ɑls → oːt
ɔmdɑt → ommɔʔ
nam → nam
mɛs → mɛt
vɔʀk → foːk
lepəl → leipo
bøl → bɘː
bæɪl → baː
sχʀæɪvən → χaifə

Current Dutch

consonants
plosive pb td k
fricative fv sz χ h
nasal m n ŋ
approximant ʋ l j ʀ

vowels
high tense i y u
high lax ɪ ʏ
mid high e ø o
mid ə (central)
low mid ɛ ɔ
low a ɑ
diphthongs æɪ œʏ ʌʊ

Final inventory
Consonants
plosive pb td kg q ʔ
fricative f s χ h
lat. fric. ɬ
nasal m n ŋ
approximant ʋ l j ʀ

notes
"ʋ, l,ʀ can't occur in coda's"
q only occurs intervocally and in coda's
ɬ,h can't occur in coda's
ʔ,h can't occur in clusters
ŋ can occur in onsets

Vowels
monophthongs
high i i: ɨ ɨ: u u:
mid high e e: ɘ ɘ: o o:
mid low ɛ ɛ: ə ɔ ɔ:
low a a:
diphthongs
mid ei ɘɨ ou
low ai aɨ au

I'll probably be unable to look at possible responses untill Sunday (European time). But then I'll certainly see if I got any constructive criticism.

some of your changes are entirely superficial or cosmetic, like [ʌʊ]→[au] or [æɪ]→[ai]. some of them just change your imagined inventory to how dutch is actually pronounced, at least in the holland region (devoicing of final obstruents and all fricatives, [ən]→[ə], etc).

yes there are probably too many unconditioned changes - in particular I imagine that the plosive clusters would only simplify initially. also most of your changes are simplifications, but we almost always find a sort of balance, where something else is made more complicated at the same time. this is because if we only ever simplify, we would end up grunting.

finlay wrote:some of them just change your imagined inventory to how dutch is actually pronounced, at least in the holland region (devoicing of final obstruents and all fricatives, [ən]→[ə], etc).

Some changes are indeed in an advance stage in at least some varieties of Dutch, but I based my original transcription on slightly more conservative transcriptions.

finlay wrote: yes there are probably too many unconditioned changes - in particular I imagine that the plosive clusters would only simplify initially. also most of your changes are simplifications, but we almost always find a sort of balance, where something else is made more complicated at the same time. this is because if we only ever simplify, we would end up grunting.

I'm going to try and come up with some ideas to balance that then.

Thanks for having a look at it!

oh yeah also does dutch have ʀ? i never heard that when i was there.

First reaction: "Nooooooo you're making it sound like German!"

Second reaction: "But there are some interesting sound changes."

You might specify where you're starting off at (i.e. the Dutch of Gent is very different from the Dutch of Leiden -- you mentioned 'northern Dutch' a lot, so I'm assuming you're going for Hollands and not Flemish), and why you're going where you're going. In the modern world language change doesn't happen in a vaccuum. Is one accent/dialect becoming more standard, dragging the others with it? More influenced by another language?

I think your heavy cluster reduction is unrealistic. You're dropping the *most* distinct sound out of the clusters (spl > sl; str > sr); I would think in a reduction, contrast would be maximized and similar sounds would drop. That is, I think spl > sp | pl would be more likely.

And maybe I missed this and it's another development in the sound changes, but where the heck does Dutch have /fn/ and /xn/ as clusters (in your nasal assimilation)?

I think you should do a totally different direction for Flemish Dutch, just to see the contrasts

also careful about introducing typologically uncommon sounds like ɬ - we simply wouldn't expect to see that in that area of Europe. the other thing is unconditionally altering t to ʔ - i guess this is based off of those english accents that do this, except that in english it never ever happens initially, only medially and finally. having a contrast between zero-onset and glottal stop-onset is also incredibly typologically rare, and completely unheard of in Europe, so again something that I doubt will ever happen.

finlay wrote:oh yeah also does dutch have ʀ? i never heard that when i was there.

I have [ʀ].

finlay wrote:also careful about introducing typologically uncommon sounds like ɬ - we simply wouldn't expect to see that in that area of Europe. the other thing is unconditionally altering t to ʔ - i guess this is based off of those english accents that do this, except that in english it never ever happens initially, only medially and finally. having a contrast between zero-onset and glottal stop-onset is also incredibly typologically rare, and completely unheard of in Europe, so again something that I doubt will ever happen.

I feel like the only thing that could ever turn into [ɬ] would be [kL].
English words that begin in vowels already begin in glottal stops. Glottal stops also replace /t/ before syllabic consonants /n m l/ (but not /r/) and at the end of words in my American dialect, dunno about Cockney.

finlay wrote:oh yeah also does dutch have ʀ? i never heard that when i was there.

Esmelthien wrote:I have [ʀ].

Me too. Although I think I mostly pronounce it as a voiced fricative or approximant if I'm not speaking carefully. And in coda's I sometimes leave it out altogether.

Jashan wrote:First reaction: "Nooooooo you're making it sound like German!"

Second reaction: "But there are some interesting sound changes."

You might specify where you're starting off at (i.e. the Dutch of Gent is very different from the Dutch of Leiden -- you mentioned 'northern Dutch' a lot, so I'm assuming you're going for Hollands and not Flemish), and why you're going where you're going. In the modern world language change doesn't happen in a vaccuum. Is one accent/dialect becoming more standard, dragging the others with it? More influenced by another language?

I think your heavy cluster reduction is unrealistic. You're dropping the *most* distinct sound out of the clusters (spl > sl; str > sr); I would think in a reduction, contrast would be maximized and similar sounds would drop. That is, I think spl > sp | pl would be more likely.

And maybe I missed this and it's another development in the sound changes, but where the heck does Dutch have /fn/ and /xn/ as clusters (in your nasal assimilation)?

I think you should do a totally different direction for Flemish Dutch, just to see the contrasts

I'm basing it mostly on my own speach, which is fairly standard Dutch-Dutch (as opposed to Belgian or Flemish Dutch). But as Finlay noted I do use some transcriptional conventions that are perhaps not too transparant, such as using [e] for [ei].
I haven't really paid much attention to influence of other languages. Mainly because, as I understand it, such influence would mostly be in sharing certain (types of) sound changes (I'm thinking of the uvular pronunciation of /r/ for example). And I don't know about future developments in other languages. I did assume that the speech of the Randstad would remain the leading dialect of the language in at least most of the Netherlands.

I'll look at the cluster reductions again. I liked the "spl > sl; str > sr"-change, because it reintroduces /sl/ and /sR\/ onsets.

Dutch also does have /fn/ and /Xn/, but both are rare. /fn/ as far as I know occurs in only one, very rare, word: <fnuiken>. /Xn/ occurs in <gneis>, <gniffelen>, <gnoe>, <gnoom> and <gnosis>, <gnostisch>, <gnosticisme> and finally <gnuiven>. These are the words found in the groene boekje

A project with Flemish would certainly be interesting. Perhaps a Fleming could have a look at that, they could certainly do that better than me.

Also, I'm really interested what makes you think of German in all this?

Thanks for having a look at it!

finlay wrote:also careful about introducing typologically uncommon sounds like ɬ - we simply wouldn't expect to see that in that area of Europe. the other thing is unconditionally altering t to ʔ - i guess this is based off of those english accents that do this, except that in english it never ever happens initially, only medially and finally. having a contrast between zero-onset and glottal stop-onset is also incredibly typologically rare, and completely unheard of in Europe, so again something that I doubt will ever happen.

I basically based this development on two premises: I would introduce ɬ (who knows, perhaps in 200 years all SAE languages will have that :p ), and I would try to work towards a syllable structure of the (C)V(C)-type. I was already afraid I was a bit too enthusiastic in that part. I'll remove the t->?/#_ change, and try to come up with something better.

Thanks again for looking at it!

meltman wrote: I feel like the only thing that could ever turn into [ɬ] would be [kL].

That seems like a think that would happen in a language that aspirates plosives, but Dutch doesn't do that. I was thinking that if clusters with a fricative and /l/ reduce, the resulting sound could be a fricative (like the original first element), but also be lateral and alveolar (like /l/). I thought it wasn't really too much of a stretch, but I could well be wrong.

Grunnen wrote: I'll look at the cluster reductions again. I liked the "spl > sl; str > sr"-change, because it reintroduces /sl/ and /sR\/ onsets.

If you like it and want to keep it, it doesn't really matter how realistic it is or not -- that's the beauty of conlanging.

Grunnen wrote: Dutch also does have /fn/ and /Xn/, but both are rare. /fn/ as far as I know occurs in only one, very rare, word: <fnuiken>. /Xn/ occurs in <gneis>, <gniffelen>, <gnoe>, <gnoom> and <gnosis>, <gnostisch>, <gnosticisme> and finally <gnuiven>.

I'd never run across <fnuiken> before. The others are mostly familiar, but I was thinking of native Dutch words, whereas most of those are loans. Still, good that you're being thorough and handling those, too!

Also, I'm really interested what makes you think of German in all this?

The /s/ hardening and the vowel changes. I speak Flemish Dutch, so my vowels are a little different than yours. I know, of course, that Flemish has /ai/ and /au/ (<haai>, <bouw>), but when you have those in the "wrong" places, it sounds very German-y to me. My ears are much more familiar with /ɛ:/ and /œ:/ or /œɪ/ and like those better.

finlay wrote:also careful about introducing typologically uncommon sounds like ɬ - we simply wouldn't expect to see that in that area of Europe. the other thing is unconditionally altering t to ʔ - i guess this is based off of those english accents that do this, except that in english it never ever happens initially, only medially and finally. having a contrast between zero-onset and glottal stop-onset is also incredibly typologically rare, and completely unheard of in Europe, so again something that I doubt will ever happen.

Grunnen: I suggest ignoring that bit about /ɬ/. It's actually found in a couple European languages, and it's indeed a rather natural outcome of simplification for certain clusters. Worse, the reasoning about anything being mystically impossible because it's "in Europe" just sounds corrupt. And European languages aren't even remotely as uniform as implied by that reasoning; look at the charts - nearly every big language in Europe has some (sets of) phonemes its closest neighbors lack.

However, the bit about changing *onset* [t] to [ʔ] is absolutely sound; such a change looks totally improbable without additional tricks you won't like :)

Also, nice language. The problem with the SC's is IMO not that unconditioned ones are many but that conditioned ones are few. But addressing this issue may be better left for the next stage, when you refine your morphosyntax, derivational patterns &like; you may find out that some additional restricted changes can help regularize this and nicely compactify that etc (this tends to happen to me all the time, at any rate).

Jashan wrote:If you like it and want to keep it, it doesn't really matter how realistic it is or not -- that's the beauty of conlanging.

That's true of course. But I still like it better if I don't make it wildly unrealistic. And I've now been pointed to some of the less likely parts of my changes, so I'll think about those. But I may end up keeping a certain level of weirdness in here I guess.

Most of the /Xn/-words are indeed loans, although for example gniffelen is thought to be a native onomatopoeia. As for fnuiken, I wouldn't even know how to use that word, but I know it exists.

Ah yes, I get how these diphthongs make you think of German. I could imagine Dutch Dutch sounding a little German in that regard already, from the perspective of Flemish speakers. The s-hardening I can't really relate to that I'm afraid.

Jashan wrote:My ears are much more familiar with /ɛ:/ and /œ:/ or /œɪ/ and like those better.

Yeah, I like those as well. But it would be very weird for me to speak like that myself.

Basilius wrote:

finlay wrote:also careful about introducing typologically uncommon sounds like ɬ - we simply wouldn't expect to see that in that area of Europe. the other thing is unconditionally altering t to ʔ - i guess this is based off of those english accents that do this, except that in english it never ever happens initially, only medially and finally. having a contrast between zero-onset and glottal stop-onset is also incredibly typologically rare, and completely unheard of in Europe, so again something that I doubt will ever happen.

Grunnen: I suggest ignoring that bit about /ɬ/. It's actually found in a couple European languages, and it's indeed a rather natural outcome of simplification for certain clusters. Worse, the reasoning about anything being mystically impossible because it's "in Europe" just sounds corrupt. And European languages aren't even remotely as uniform as implied by that reasoning; look at the charts - nearly every big language in Europe has some (sets of) phonemes its closest neighbors lack.

I'm glad to hear someone is of that opinion as well. Especially as /ɬ/ would intuitively seem such a natural outcome of the process. And I feel people would have said uvulars are something that wouldn't happen in Europe, if the European languages had just now arrived at a point they were a few hundred years ago (No uvular /r/'s, no Dutch /X/). (But then again, I don't KNOW that of course)

Basilius wrote:However, the bit about changing *onset* [t] to [ʔ] is absolutely sound; such a change looks totally improbable without additional tricks you won't like

You guys convinced me. I'm definitely going to change that one. But now that you bring it up, what would those tricks be?

Basilius wrote:Also, nice language. The problem with the SC's is IMO not that unconditioned ones are many but that conditioned ones are few. But addressing this issue may be better left for the next stage, when you refine your morphosyntax, derivational patterns &like; you may find out that some additional restricted changes can help regularize this and nicely compactify that etc (this tends to happen to me all the time, at any rate).

I like that suggestion. That may be a good way to work out what leads to nice results and what doesn't. How many such changes would you think are approximately 'needed' to make it more naturalistic?

Thanks for the remarks.

Grunnen wrote:

Basilius wrote:However, the bit about changing *onset* [t] to [ʔ] is absolutely sound; such a change looks totally improbable without additional tricks you won't like :)

You guys convinced me. I'm definitely going to change that one. But now that you bring it up, what would those tricks be?

Whatever I can think of right now feels extremely forced.

The first trouble is, in all changes driving onset plosives to [ʔ], alveolars seem least probable to be affected.

So, for example, trying it via ejectives (kinda attested). Suppose voiceless plosives become ejectives (why, is another story). Then we need the alveolar to remain the only ejective, if we want only the alveolar to become [ʔ]. OK, the bilabial may just fail to become ejective, for bilabial + ejective is a particularly marked feature combination. Then we are left with alveolar and velar, and we need to eliminate the velar. Perhaps, through ejective -> pharyngealized (precedent: Arabic emphatics)? Then pharyngealized velar -> uvular (with or without loss of pharyngealization), and the lonely alveolar ejective -> glootal stop. OK.

Now, why ejective. This could be a natural contrast enhancement if we already had (a) aspirates and (b) some other, "lax" voiceless series. Note that ejectives are the most marked series of these three, so at least one of the other two must be more frequent. OK, voiced plosives may be more frequent initially than voiceless ones in Dutch (are they?). So perhaps (1) we get aspirates e. g. from CR-clusters (assuming the dialect we start off does not aspirate initial voiceless plosives - is this the case?), then (2) we turn voiced into lax voiceless (would be more natural with some kind of system pressure helping this, but OK), then (3) we glottalize /t k/ but not /p/ (merging with former /b/?) to enhance the contrast with the other two series.

As I said, there is something forced with each stage.

How many such changes would you think are approximately 'needed' to make it more naturalistic?

I don't know... it seems that in natlangs conditioned changes are usually at least as many...

Basilius wrote:Whatever I can think of right now feels extremely forced.

That's indeed a long detour. I may actually be definitively cured from the trying to get contrastive initial glottal stops.

Does Dutch have stressed vowels phonemically?

If so, why not have glottal stops appear word-initially before them? Unstressed initial vowels would remain unadorned.

Then you could have stress shift any way you want it to and there you have them, contrastive glottal stops.

R.Rusanov wrote:Does Dutch have stressed vowels phonemically?

If so, why not have glottal stops appear word-initially before them? Unstressed initial vowels would remain unadorned.

Then you could have stress shift any way you want it to and there you have them, contrastive glottal stops.

Dutch does have contrastive stress, but word initial syllables tend to either have full stress or secondary stress. The only word initial syllables I can think of right now that are really unstressed are some prefixes.

Grunnen wrote:

R.Rusanov wrote:Does Dutch have stressed vowels phonemically?

If so, why not have glottal stops appear word-initially before them? Unstressed initial vowels would remain unadorned.

Then you could have stress shift any way you want it to and there you have them, contrastive glottal stops.

Dutch does have contrastive stress, but word initial syllables tend to either have full stress or secondary stress. The only word initial syllables I can think of right now that are really unstressed are some prefixes.

Agreed. For instance, ge is never stressed that I can think of: gewerkt

But, while truly contrastive stress (i.e. the ONLY difference in the two words is where the stress falls), it does occur: voorkommen (stress on 'kommen') = "to exist, occur" vs. vóórkomen (stress on 'voor') = "to prevent, avoid."

Wow. If we're allowed to ask questions here about features of Dutch potentially important for condiachronics, maybe someone could comment on what I said before?

OK, voiced plosives may be more frequent initially than voiceless ones in Dutch (are they?)

<...> assuming the dialect we start off does not aspirate initial voiceless plosives - is this the case?

Don't worry about the origin of [ɬ] - as I understand it, Welsh /ɬ/ sometimes comes from earlier *sl, and Icelandic <hl> is basically [l̥] but is often more like [ɬ]. (Icelandic also has <hr> [r̥] and a set of voiceless nasals. I see you also have fʀ > χ etc., which helps, because then [ɬ] is part of a bigger set of changes, and not just a freak occurrence.)

As for the cluster reductions, yes, you may want to limit where they occur, but there is precedent here as well. Latin knocked the hell out of its consonant clusters. You get things like stlocus > locus, *snix > nix, and *lousna (from PIE *leuksnā!) > lūna.

OK, voiced plosives may be more frequent initially than voiceless ones in Dutch (are they?)

I can't say on this. Voiced obstruents definitely are, since Dutch voices initial fricatives as a general rule (vijf, zever, etc.) But it doesn't happen with plosives so I'm not sure how you could tell other than a flat-out statistical analysis of a dictionary.

<...> assuming the dialect we start off does not aspirate initial voiceless plosives - is this the case?

[/quote]

He's using Hollands Dutch as a starting point; for that, I don't know. In Flemish dialects, as a general rule, initial voiceless plosives are not aspirated.

Vóórkomen vs voorkómen is indeed an obvious example of words being different only with respect to stress placement. Mostly in Dutch, as with this example, it results from a verb with a verbal prefix. In one of the instances, the prefix is stressed (which is the case with separable pefexes), in the other instance, the verbal stem is stressed (which is what you get with inseparable verbs). An example in which this is not the case is cánon vs kanón (I hope I got the c and k right). But this is really rare.

Basilius wrote:Wow. If we're allowed to ask questions here about features of Dutch potentially important for condiachronics, maybe someone could comment on what I said before?

OK, voiced plosives may be more frequent initially than voiceless ones in Dutch (are they?)

<...> assuming the dialect we start off does not aspirate initial voiceless plosives - is this the case?

I don't know about the relative abundance of voiced and voiceless initial plosives. I do know that only the northwestern (Saxon) dialects of Dutch use aspirated plosives. Most speakers of Dutch associate those plosives with foreigners and yokels (as far as I can tell, this is a rather derogatory term in English, which is a sentiment many people strongly connect to this type of speech in Dutch).

Naeboşkoventi wrote:Don't worry about the origin of [ɬ] - as I understand it, Welsh /ɬ/ sometimes comes from earlier *sl, and Icelandic <hl> is basically [l̥] but is often more like [ɬ]. (Icelandic also has <hr> [r̥] and a set of voiceless nasals. I see you also have fʀ > χ etc., which helps, because then [ɬ] is part of a bigger set of changes, and not just a freak occurrence.)

As for the cluster reductions, yes, you may want to limit where they occur, but there is precedent here as well. Latin knocked the hell out of its consonant clusters. You get things like stlocus > locus, *snix > nix, and *lousna (from PIE *leuksnā!) > lūna.

Although from those examples it seems more like Latin just dropped stuff, not really having other changes going on along with that. But it's indeed a nice example.