zompist bboard

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 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]

For context, an edited version of my last post in Sound Change Quickies without the original question is below:

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).

[ä→ɑ]
[ɛ→e]
[ʏ→i]
[ɔ→o]
[ɯ→u]
[äʏ̯→ɑi]
[äɯ̯→ɑu]
[ɔʏ̯→oi]

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

Intergalactic Standard is straightforwardly T5. Sphinx is... weird because it has /ʏ ɯ/ instead of /i u/, but is otherwise T5.

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.

[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:].

I should have mentioned that IgS doesn't geminate consonants. Thus, /ŋ/ is always pronounced as in sing,never as in finger ([ŋg]).

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.)

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.

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.

I'm thinking of the silent <e>, which still isn't reduced. There's a word boundary there as well.

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])

Can /ɲ/ be used for [mj nj] or just [nj]? Same question for /ŋ/ regarding [mk mg nk ng].

/m/ can also assimilate, so [J Nk Ng] are possible as realisations of /mj mk mg/.

Is having [c k] as one glyph with /k/ as the underlying phone workable?

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.)

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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?

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.

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/
...