zompist bboard

yangfiretiger121 wrote:Great! Would /ʃ͡ɹ̠̊˔/ or [ʃɹ̠̊˔] be the most likely outcome of <shr> since both components are voiceless post-alveolar fricatives?

I am not aware of postalveolar non-sibilant voiceless fricatives even existing (even though alveolar non-sibilant fricatives do exist), especially adjacent to a postaveolar sibilant voiceless fricative. If they did exist, I would expect the situation to be highly unstable, and to quickly turn into just [ʃː].

yangfiretiger121 wrote: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/
...

I do question why you have a single voiceless nasal with no matching voiced nasal rather than series of voiced nasals and a matching series of voiceless nasals.

Anyways, I would put that as:

/m n ɲ n͡m/
/ŋ̊/

Generally, /ɹ̝̊ ɹ̠̊˔/ are only adjacent to /t s/. However, I pronounce [sɹ̝̊] as [ʃɹ̝̊] due to speaking English natively. As for the single voiceless nasal, Altrunians merged [nk ŋ~ŋ] (<nk ng>) before devoicing several consonants. Is /ŋ/ still valid after the devoicing? I figured they may devoice it because of the <k>, even though /m n/ survived the devoicing.

Sound progressions (noting that changed sounds are in red text)
Galactic Standard or prior
/nʲ→ɲ/
/kʲ→c/
/xʲ→ç/
/t͡ʃ→k/
/d͡ʒ→j/
Galactic Standard-to-Outsider
/tʲ→tɹ̝̊/
/c→t͡ʃ/
/sʲ→sɹ̝̊/
/ç→ʃ/
/j→ɟ/

Would /j→ɟ/ or /j→ʝ/ be more likely? I don't like the insertion of a /g/ phoneme where one never existed before (/ɟ/ sounds like <gy>).

yangfiretiger121 wrote:Would /j→ɟ/ or /j→ʝ/ be more likely? I don't like the insertion of a /g/ phoneme where one never existed before (/ɟ/ sounds like <gy>).

/j→ʝ/, definitely, but it's hardly worth noting. In Swedish at least, and probably other Scandinavian languages as well, <j> is a [ʝ] not [j], but they sound almost identical anyway, and that's coming from a native speaker of both English and Swedish.

Got it.

What are likely outcomes for /r̥ʲ rʲ/, if any exist?

yangfiretiger121 wrote:Got it.

What are likely outcomes for /r̥ʲ rʲ/, if any exist?

Historical /rʲ/ in Polish became modern Polish /ʐ/. This in turn can be devoiced to [ʂ].

Is /ɳ/ a likely outcome for /mʲ nʲ→ɲ/ in Outsider? The idea is that /ʝ/ is supposed to be Outsider's only palatal or palatalization.

I can't think of an example of [ɲ] changing to [ɳ].

Are /ʈʂ ʂ/ more likely outcomes for /c ç/ than /t͡ʃ ʃ/?

yangfiretiger121 wrote:Are /ʈʂ ʂ/ more likely outcomes for /c ç/ than /t͡ʃ ʃ/?

I would say the other way around; /c ç/ are more likely to become [t͡ʃ ʃ] than [ʈʂ ʂ].

Before I post my combined recap, is /ʃ→ʂ/ or the reverse more likely?

I'm not sure one is more likely than the other, but I think /ʃ→ʂ/ is especially likely after a rhotic.

As of now, Outsider has both /ʃ ʂ/. Essentially, I'm asking if the sounds are stable enough to coexist, and, if they aren't, which would survive the merger.

yangfiretiger121 wrote:As of now, Outsider has both /ʃ ʂ/. Essentially, I'm asking if the sounds are stable enough to coexist, and, if they aren't, which would survive the merger.

Polish and Mandarin both have /s ʂ ɕ/ without any problem, so if you feel /ʂ ʃ/ are too close together, you could back /ʃ/ to /ɕ/.

Some languages or at least language varieties have /ʂ/ and /ʃ/ without any problem, too. (Pashto and some varieties of Hindi come to mind).

Thanks for the help, guys.

What are likely outcomes of /tʲ sʲ/? [pr̥ʲ tr̥ʲ kr̥ʲ sr̥ʲ]? I'm reasonably sure the sequences would end in /ʂ/ but want to make sure.

yangfiretiger121 wrote:Thanks for the help, guys.

What are likely outcomes of /tʲ sʲ/? [pr̥ʲ tr̥ʲ kr̥ʲ sr̥ʲ]? I'm reasonably sure the sequences would end in /ʂ/ but want to make sure.

Any of [tɕ ɕ] or [tʃ ʃ] seem likely for the former. For the latter, any of [pʂ tʂ kʂ ʂː] or [pʃ tʃ kʃ ʃː] seem likely.

Okay. Somehow, I forgot about /pʲ/. What are likely outcomes for it?

yangfiretiger121 wrote:Okay. Somehow, I forgot about /pʲ/. What are likely outcomes for it?

Either it would stay as is, or it would turn into something like [pç], [pɕ], or [pʃ], even though in some languages (e.g. Tibetan varieties) /pj/ has turned into one of [cç], [tɕ], or [tʃ] (I don't remember which exactly offhand),

Could it lenite to [fʲ] or something like that?

Vijay wrote:Could it lenite into [fʲ] or something like that?

It might be able to under average circumstances, however, Outsider speakers would devoice it back to [pʲ] because the language's only voiced consonants are supposed to be /m n ɲ ŋ ʐ ʝ ɰ r/.

yangfiretiger121 wrote:

Vijay wrote:Could it lenite into [fʲ] or something like that?

It might be able to under average circumstances, however, Outsider speakers would devoice it back to [pʲ] because the language's only voiced consonants are supposed to be /m n ɲ ŋ ʐ ʝ ɰ r/.

Umm... [fʲ] is voiceless.

Point.

How likely are the following changes: (a) /ɕ→ʂ/ (/ʃʲ→ɕ/ changing for the same reason /kʲ→c/ changes), (b/c) /pʲ→fʲ→θ/ (/pʲ→fʲ/ would be a merger), and (d1) /θʲ→r̪̊/ or (d2) /θʲ→r̪/

I've never heard of any of those happening FWIW.