zompist bboard

a congress of convoluted conworldery
It is currently Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:53 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 12:22 am 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 11:22 am
Posts: 97
The are allophonic rules for /ɹ ʁ l ʟ/ involving syllable moras that lead to odd pronunciation changes, of which five examples are below. Please help me explain the rules. Mostly, they'll lead to [ɑi oi] diphthongs after nasals, plosives, affricates, and fricatives or a syllabic [i] between a vowel and a consonant or postvocalically.
1. Superbia —> ['su.pe.i.bi.ɑ]
2. Gamora —> ['ɢɑ.moi.ʁɑ]
3. Lizolda —> [ʟi'zoi.dɑ]
4. Taras —> ['tɑi.ɹɑs]
5. Arbiter —> ['ɑl.bɑi.te.i]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:17 am 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 11:22 am
Posts: 97
For context, an edited version of my last post in Sound Change Quickies without the original question is below:
Quote:
The Sphinx language only had five vowels, eight including diphthongs, (red text below), similar to its descendant's—Intergalactic Standard—original structure (green text below).

[äɑ]
[ɛe]
[ʏi]
[ɔo]
[ɯu]
[äʏ̯ɑi]
[äɯ̯ɑu]
[ɔʏ̯oi]


Where would each language fit into the five vowel classification detailed in the Vowel Systems topic?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 18, 2018 2:16 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
Posts: 3063
Location: Brittania
Intergalactic Standard is straightforwardly T5. Sphinx is... weird because it has /ʏ ɯ/ instead of /i u/, but is otherwise T5.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:14 pm 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 11:22 am
Posts: 97
Modern Intergalactic standard has lost its laterals (/ɬ l/) as the results of [ɹ l ʟ→ʁ] and /ɬ→h/. The other change associated with these was /r→ʀ/. What sound changes would be logical, aside from the standard allophonic rules for /ʁ/? One allophonic variation would be [lf→p͡f] because of [vf] being very hard, if not impossible, to articulate. This is here instead of sound change quickies so it won't need to be moved later.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:26 pm 
Šriftom
Šriftom

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Posts: 8282
Location: Milwaukee, US
[vf] isn't especially hard - consider "I ha[v]e [f]our cats". If anything I would expect it to turn into [v:] or [f:].

_________________
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:34 pm 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 11:22 am
Posts: 97
I should have mentioned that IgS doesn't geminate consonants. Thus, /ŋ/ is always pronounced as in sing,never as in finger ([ŋg]).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:58 pm 
Šriftom
Šriftom

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Posts: 8282
Location: Milwaukee, US
Changing to permit geminates seems like it'd be an "easier" sound change than fortition to [pf].

(By the way, [ŋg] is not a geminate.)

_________________
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 2:38 pm 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 11:22 am
Posts: 97
Point.

As for the [lf→p͡f], there's a reduced vowel (e) between the [vf] of "have four," whereas Alfia would be analyzed as [av.fi.a] in this case.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 3:30 pm 
Šriftom
Šriftom

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Posts: 8282
Location: Milwaukee, US
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
Point.

As for the [lf→p͡f], there's a reduced vowel (e) between the [vf] of "have four," whereas Alfia would be analyzed as [av.fi.a] in this case.

There is no reduced vowel in "have four". Maybe in Middle English, but certainly not in modern English.

_________________
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:46 am 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 11:22 am
Posts: 97
I'm thinking of the silent <e>, which still isn't reduced. There's a word boundary there as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:22 pm 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 11:22 am
Posts: 97
Sound changes from Common to Intergalactic Standard:
1/2. [liqC+C→C] and [postvoc. liqC→v] (Arbaiter ['ɑɹ.bɑi.teɹ→'ɑ.bɑi.tev]);
3/4. velarization/uvularization (Alikra [ɑ.li'kɹɑ→ɑ.ʟi'kʁ̝ɑ], Rikishi ['ri.ki.ʃi→'ʀi.ki.ʃi]);
5. [nk→ŋ] word-finally and preceding a word-final /ɑ o u/ (Senka ['sen.kɑ→'seŋ.ɑ]);
6. delateralization (Balos ['bɑ.ʟos→'bɑ.ʁ̞os], Hlasa ['ɬɑ.sɑ→'hɑ.sɑ]); and
7. palatalization (Altrunia [ɑl'tɹu.ni.ɑ→ɑ'tʁ̝u.ɲɑ])


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:32 am 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 11:22 am
Posts: 97
Can /ɲ/ be used for [mj nj] or just [nj]? Same question for /ŋ/ regarding [mk mg nk ng].


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:43 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 3:03 pm
Posts: 628
Location: Nijmegen, Netherlands
/m/ can also assimilate, so [J Nk Ng] are possible as realisations of /mj mk mg/.

_________________
Bearlandic - Kunesian - Nåmúþ


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2018 8:43 am 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 11:22 am
Posts: 97
Is having [c k] as one glyph with /k/ as the underlying phone workable?


Last edited by yangfiretiger121 on Sun Mar 11, 2018 9:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2018 3:24 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:00 pm
Posts: 1433
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
Is having [c k] as one glyph with /k/ as the underlying phone workable?

Can one glyph represent multiple phonemes or allophones? Certainly, ask your physician or medic. (Note that in that sentence <c> denotes [kʰ s ʃ k] respectively.)

_________________
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 9:20 am 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 11:22 am
Posts: 97
Intergalactic Standard and Pahus use a simplified hieroglyphic alphabet. Currently, khi'a (['xi.ʔɑ]) (linked because hieroglyphs aren't supported) means either sieve or placenta as an ideogram. Do I need to come up with another word for placenta as sieve will be the more common meaning?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 4:24 pm 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 11:22 am
Posts: 97
The general rule for -<Cia> and -<Ciu> is for the <i> to palatalize the preceding consonant, creating /mʲ nʲ/ among many others. Could the palatalizations with corresponding consonants have morphed into those consonants (/nʲ→ɲ/) somewhere along the line? The replacement of palatals with uvulars (/c→q/) in Pahus is stopping me from doing it off-hand.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 4:36 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 1248
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
Could the palatalizations with corresponding consonants have morphed into those consonants (/nʲ→ɲ/) somewhere along the line?

If you mean palatalized consonants becoming palatal consonants, then I would say absolutely. Palatalization could just be dropped at some point for all consonants (so the palatalized consonant "merges" with the plain consonant). It could happen for just certain series of consonants as well. Perhaps labials & alveolars retain palatalization, while palatalized velars just become palatals. Later on, your /c→q/ could happen.

Legalese: I'm no expert in phonology, so don't quote me on this. ;) However, seems quite reasonable.

_________________
Tibetan Dwarvish - My own ergative "dwarf-lang"

Quasi-Khuzdul - An expansion of J.R.R. Tolkien's Dwarvish language from The Lord of the Rings


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 9:25 pm 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 11:22 am
Posts: 97
Okay. The current palatal-velar-uvular relationship (e. g. /c k q/) works out so only palatals and velars, such as /c k/, appear in Galactic Standard while only velars and uvulars, such as /k q/, appear in the Outsider language. The only exception is the /j→ʁ/ in Outsider because /ʁ/ always represents the uvular fricative in both languages, leaving /ɰ/ as Outsider's only approximant.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:37 am 
Šriftom
Šriftom

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Posts: 8282
Location: Milwaukee, US
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
The general rule for -<Cia> and -<Ciu> is for the <i> to palatalize the preceding consonant, creating /mʲ nʲ/ among many others. Could the palatalizations with corresponding consonants have morphed into those consonants (/nʲ→ɲ/) somewhere along the line? The replacement of palatals with uvulars (/c→q/) in Pahus is stopping me from doing it off-hand.

On one hand, nʲ > ɲ is a very likely sound change. On the other hand, c > q is highly unlikely; if anything, a palatal is likely to move forward (changes like c > {tɕ tʃ tʂ ts} are very common), not backwards, and certainly not to a uvular position, especially assuming that there is a velar consonant it would have to move through for that to happen.

_________________
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:50 am 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 11:22 am
Posts: 97
Okay. Is there a feasible way to merge /j→ʁ/ (/ʁ/ being fricative and paired with its trill /ʀ/ in allophony), or would the change have to be something like /j→ɹ̠̊˔/? Somewhere along the line, there was a /w→ɰʷ→ɰ/ as well.

Sound changes
nʲ→ɲ (likely)
kʲ→c (likely)
xʲ→ç (???)
c→t͡s (likely)
ç→θ/θ̠ (likely)
j→ɹ̠̊˔ (???; fronting, devoicing, frication)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:27 pm 
Šriftom
Šriftom

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Posts: 8282
Location: Milwaukee, US
xʲ > ç is extremely likely. On the other hand, ç > θ seems less likely, about as likely to turn into any other more front fricative. ç > {ɕ ʃ h 0} seems more likely to me.

_________________
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:23 pm 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 11:22 am
Posts: 97
Okay. Apparently, /ɹ̠̊˔/ is a better transcription for <r> than /ʁ/ because it pairs with voiceless consonants, such as /k/. Is /j/ likely to survive into Outsider?


Last edited by yangfiretiger121 on Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:15 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:37 pm 
Šriftom
Šriftom

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Posts: 8282
Location: Milwaukee, US
Well... the main way [j] changes is being absorbed into adjacent consonants as palatalization, being absorbed into adjacent vowels, or undergoing fortition to the likes of [ɟ dʑ dʒ]. I honestly don't see [j] becoming a rhotic, much the less a voiceless one (unless, say, it is adjacent to a voiceless consonant), TBH.

_________________
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:51 am 
Lebom
Lebom

Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 11:22 am
Posts: 97
Great! Would /ʃ͡ɹ̠̊˔/ or [ʃɹ̠̊˔] be the most likely outcome of <shr> since both components are voiceless post-alveolar fricatives?

Which inventory layout below is correct for the coarticulations since they have their own IPA table?
(a)
/m n ɲ ŋ̊ n͡m/
etc, or
(b)
/m n ɲ ŋ̊/
...
/n͡m/
...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Travis B. and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group