Relative frequency of /oi/ vs /eu/

Discussion of natural languages, or language in general.
Post Reply
Αυτοβοτα
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2014 11:22 pm

Relative frequency of /oi/ vs /eu/

Post by Αυτοβοτα »

In my experience, /oi/ seems to be a more common diphthong cross-linguistically than /eu/. Every language I know of with /eu/ also has /oi/, but the reverse does not apply. Somali has /ai/, /au/, /ei/, /ou/, and /oi/, but not /eu/, and English has a similar situation to Somali. Basque shows /au/, /ai/, /ei/, /eu/, and /oi/, supporting sentence 2. To my knowledge, Japanese allows /oi/ but not /eu/.

Is there any reason for this distribution of diphthongs? Or do I only see this as a result of limited knowledge?

(I'd be interested in a dedicated treatment of diphthongs cross-linguistically, if any of you have 'em.)
-_-_Aftovota_-_-

User avatar
marconatrix
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 234
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 4:29 pm
Location: Kernow
Contact:

Re: Relative frequency of /oi/ vs /eu/

Post by marconatrix »

Some sounds are more 'volatile' (tend to change into other sounds faster) than others. Could it be that /ew/ has a shorter half-life than /oj/, so taking a snapshot over a number of languages you'd be likely to catch more processes passing through /oj/ than through /ew/ ?
Kyn nag ov den skentel pur ...

User avatar
Benturi
Sanci
Sanci
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 5:50 pm

Re: Relative frequency of /oi/ vs /eu/

Post by Benturi »

Αυτοβοτα wrote:In my experience, /oi/ seems to be a more common diphthong cross-linguistically than /eu/.
I have the same impression, and often hesitate to include /eu/ in a conlang unless it also has /oi/.
A possible counterexample: Proto-Germanic had */eu/ but no */oi/. It did have */ōi/, but this diphthong was rare and it occurred only word-finally in some grammatical endings like fem. singular dative, while */eu/ was relatively common (class 2 strong verbs, words like *deupaz, *leuhtą, *þeubaz, etc.).

User avatar
KathTheDragon
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2139
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
Location: Brittania

Re: Relative frequency of /oi/ vs /eu/

Post by KathTheDragon »

Benturi wrote:
Αυτοβοτα wrote:In my experience, /oi/ seems to be a more common diphthong cross-linguistically than /eu/.
I have the same impression, and often hesitate to include /eu/ in a conlang unless it also has /oi/.
A possible counterexample: Proto-Germanic had */eu/ but no */oi/. It did have */ōi/, but this diphthong was rare and it occurred only word-finally in some grammatical endings like fem. singular dative, while */eu/ was relatively common (class 2 strong verbs, words like *deupaz, *leuhtą, *þeubaz, etc.).
Note that Proto-Germanic also had no /o/, so you'd expect an absence of /oi/.

User avatar
Pole, the
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 1606
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:50 am

Re: Relative frequency of /oi/ vs /eu/

Post by Pole, the »

Αυτοβοτα wrote:In my experience, /oi/ seems to be a more common diphthong cross-linguistically than /eu/. Every language I know of with /eu/ also has /oi/, but the reverse does not apply. Somali has /ai/, /au/, /ei/, /ou/, and /oi/, but not /eu/, and English has a similar situation to Somali. Basque shows /au/, /ai/, /ei/, /eu/, and /oi/, supporting sentence 2. To my knowledge, Japanese allows /oi/ but not /eu/.
IIRC Japanese had /eu/ → /juː/.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that /i̯/ is more common than /u̯/?
The conlanger formerly known as “the conlanger formerly known as Pole, the”.

If we don't study the mistakes of the future we're doomed to repeat them for the first time.

User avatar
Benturi
Sanci
Sanci
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 5:50 pm

Re: Relative frequency of /oi/ vs /eu/

Post by Benturi »

KathAveara wrote:Note that Proto-Germanic also had no /o/, so you'd expect an absence of /oi/.
Of course... :oops:
Maybe in some stage after a-mutation created /o/ there was /eu/ but no /oi/?

User avatar
KathTheDragon
Smeric
Smeric
Posts: 2139
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
Location: Brittania

Re: Relative frequency of /oi/ vs /eu/

Post by KathTheDragon »

Benturi wrote:
KathAveara wrote:Note that Proto-Germanic also had no /o/, so you'd expect an absence of /oi/.
Of course... :oops:
Maybe in some stage after a-mutation created /o/ there was /eu/ but no /oi/?
Probably, but I don't think it lasted very long.

M Mira
Lebom
Lebom
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 8:21 pm
Location: Taipeium, Respublica Sinarum

Re: Relative frequency of /oi/ vs /eu/

Post by M Mira »

Pole, the wrote:
Αυτοβοτα wrote:In my experience, /oi/ seems to be a more common diphthong cross-linguistically than /eu/. Every language I know of with /eu/ also has /oi/, but the reverse does not apply. Somali has /ai/, /au/, /ei/, /ou/, and /oi/, but not /eu/, and English has a similar situation to Somali. Basque shows /au/, /ai/, /ei/, /eu/, and /oi/, supporting sentence 2. To my knowledge, Japanese allows /oi/ but not /eu/.
IIRC Japanese had /eu/ → /juː/.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that /i̯/ is more common than /u̯/?
/eu/ → /joː/ actually.

…and that lead me to Middle Chinese, where the bulk of /eu/ were from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Chinese_finals

And did I happen to hit the bull's eye? Every reconstruction contains at least one /eu/ or /ɛu/, but only in Baxter's reconstruction can /oj/ be found, and it's missing in everyone else's works.

Sumelic
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 385
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 7:05 pm

Re: Relative frequency of /oi/ vs /eu/

Post by Sumelic »

M Mira wrote:
Pole, the wrote:
Αυτοβοτα wrote:In my experience, /oi/ seems to be a more common diphthong cross-linguistically than /eu/. Every language I know of with /eu/ also has /oi/, but the reverse does not apply. Somali has /ai/, /au/, /ei/, /ou/, and /oi/, but not /eu/, and English has a similar situation to Somali. Basque shows /au/, /ai/, /ei/, /eu/, and /oi/, supporting sentence 2. To my knowledge, Japanese allows /oi/ but not /eu/.
IIRC Japanese had /eu/ → /juː/.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that /i̯/ is more common than /u̯/?
/eu/ → /joː/ actually.
I've actually heard both of these sound changes attributed to Japanese in different places, so I'm confused and wondering if someone familiar with the phonological history can explain.
Over on the CBB, clawgrip, who seems to know a lot about Japanese, says:
clawgrip wrote:Some facts about Japanese vowels:
1. The sequences iu, eu, io, eo, resulting from loss of /w/ (from earlier /f/) become in /ju: ju: jo: jo:/ respectively. The front vowel is reduced to a semivowel, and the back vowel is lengthened so that the sequence retains a length of two morae. The two vowels remain distinct and identifiable elements, so it's not exactly a vowel merger. The sequences au ou and usually ei, on the other hand, simply become /o: o: e:/, but only within a root, not in grammatical endings (so the verb 会う au from afu does not become ō, for example.
On the other hand, Wikipedia apparently has a source for the statement that:
The vowel sequence /au/ contracted into [ɔː], while /ou/ and /eu/ contracted into [oː] and [joː], respectively.
Is one of these sources simply wrong, or are both changes attested (perhaps in different contexts, such as sequences within a root vs. sequences derived from the addition of grammatical endings)?

User avatar
Nortaneous
Sumerul
Sumerul
Posts: 4544
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
Location: the Imperial Corridor

Re: Relative frequency of /oi/ vs /eu/

Post by Nortaneous »

Dananshan Hmong. Only counterexample I can think of. Might be more in that area.
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.

User avatar
Zhen Lin
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 304
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 9:59 am

Re: Relative frequency of /oi/ vs /eu/

Post by Zhen Lin »

Sumelic wrote:Is one of these sources simply wrong, or are both changes attested (perhaps in different contexts, such as sequences within a root vs. sequences derived from the addition of grammatical endings)?
Wikipedia is correct. Look at historical orthography, e.g. 〜ませう for 〜ましょう.
書不盡言、言不盡意

cntrational
Sanci
Sanci
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 12:14 pm

Re: Relative frequency of /oi/ vs /eu/

Post by cntrational »

My (likely wrong) intuition is that diphthongs that go from back → front are more common and stable than front → back. So [au] is more common than [æu].
Sumelic wrote:Is one of these sources simply wrong, or are both changes attested (perhaps in different contexts, such as sequences within a root vs. sequences derived from the addition of grammatical endings)?
Both are correct. Clawgrip is talking about where some /au/, /eu/, and /ou/ came from, while WIkipedia just notes the later soundchanges.

CatDoom
Avisaru
Avisaru
Posts: 739
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 1:12 am

Re: Relative frequency of /oi/ vs /eu/

Post by CatDoom »

‮suoenatroN wrote:Dananshan Hmong. Only counterexample I can think of. Might be more in that area.
Peculiarly, Wikipedia describes the diphthong in question as [eβ] rather than [eu]. If there's any reality to this analysis, it would seem to provide further evidence of [eu] being unstable or otherwise unusual.

Post Reply