Sound Change Quickie Thread

[Qwynegold]

What's a plausible way to merge at least some of /s ʂ ɕ ç/ (and equivalently /z ʐ ʑ ʝ/) together? /ç ʝ/ is a merger of either /h h/ or /x ɣ/ (depending on the source) before front vowels, and I think that's a lot of places of articulation close together to keep around.

This is probably too late now, but I would suggest having /s/ and /s\/, and /h/ and /C/ in complementary distribution, with the palatals appearing in vicinity of front vowels. I also think that Tropylium's suggestion, /s\ s`/ /S/, is very good.

[R.Rusanov]

What are some plausible systems for /s θ ʃ/ to decay to, over time? Which of them is most likely to shift to [x]?

[Pogostick Man]

What are some plausible systems for /s θ ʃ/ to decay to, over time?

Either of /θ ʃ/ could become /s/ (though /ʃ/ might stay as it is, and /s/ merge to it, before /i/). You could even have, say, /s/ shift to /r/ beforehand and recover it with a subsequent change (likely /θ/ shifting to /s/). /θ/ could also front to /f/, lenite (maybe to /l/ or /r/, depending on if it's voiced or whatever), or fortite to /t/, if not drop out outright.

Which of them is most likely to shift to [x]?

I would say /ʃ/. I could see /θ/ doing it too, though less likely (unless you went through /r/ which then goes uvular and then fricativizes).

[jmcd]

I'd say that both /s ʃ/ could change into /x/ but /θ/ is unlikely to do likewise. With the sibilants, it resembles the RUKI rule that occurred in multiple Indo-European subfamilies. Also in early modern Spanish.

[StrangerCoug]

t/d/_
k/g/_

Voicing of /t k/ is much more likely to be intervocalic than unconditional.

[SomeUserToo?]

Thank you! I have updated the sound changes to incorparate this.

[vokzhen]

I'd say /θ/ isn't too unlikely. Irish and Scottish Gaelic shifted lenited /t d/ > /x ɣ/, Scots and some Scottish English dialects take /θ/ > /h/ which could be an intermediary, Ugartic has an occasional *ɣ as a reflex of *θ' (if it was pharyngealized by this point in time that explains it, but afaict the emphatics are assumed to have been pharyngealized simply because Arabic/Aramaic/Hebrew were, even though that's 1000 years later). There's also the Slavey dialects that turn the interdentals into labiovelars, though I believe they're assumed to undergo rounding and/or labiodentalization as an intermediary.

I'd say of all of them, /ʃ/ is most likely to back directly to /x/, while /s/ or /θ/ could easily debuccalize to /h/ and then become velar.

You could go the unexpected and take θ > ɬ. If it acts differently than the other two fricative that you could voice it that opens up a lot, voiced (inter)dentals end up as all kinds of things, liquids, nasals, /j/, /d/, /b/, /w/, basically any other voiced fricative, nothing, vowel length...

[Zaarin]

I'd say /θ/ isn't too unlikely. Irish and Scottish Gaelic shifted lenited /t d/ > /x ɣ/, Scots and some Scottish English dialects take /θ/ > /h/ which could be an intermediary, Ugartic has an occasional *ɣ as a reflex of *θ' (if it was pharyngealized by this point in time that explains it, but afaict the emphatics are assumed to have been pharyngealized simply because Arabic/Aramaic/Hebrew were, even though that's 1000 years later). There's also the Slavey dialects that turn the interdentals into labiovelars, though I believe they're assumed to undergo rounding and/or labiodentalization as an intermediary.

I'd say of all of them, /ʃ/ is most likely to back directly to /x/, while /s/ or /θ/ could easily debuccalize to /h/ and then become velar.

You could go the unexpected and take θ > ɬ. If it acts differently than the other two fricative that you could voice it that opens up a lot, voiced (inter)dentals end up as all kinds of things, liquids, nasals, /j/, /d/, /b/, /w/, basically any other voiced fricative, nothing, vowel length...

While Modern Hebrew emphatics are often pharyngealized, I'm pretty certain it's generally agreed that Biblical Hebrew's emphatics were ejective just like Proto-Semitic's.

[Nortaneous]

What are some plausible systems for /s θ ʃ/ to decay to, over time? Which of them is most likely to shift to [x]?

* T > s
* S > s
* s > r, T > s
* T > f > x
* S > s` > x
* S > s` > h > 0, leaving rhoticity on the preceding vowel, then rhoticity spreads across syllables
* s > r > gL\ > G > x, T > s
* s > ... > x, S > s, T > f
* s > h, S > s
* T > h
* T > D > d
* T > t
* T > D > l
* T > K

[vokzhen]

While Modern Hebrew emphatics are often pharyngealized, I'm pretty certain it's generally agreed that Biblical Hebrew's emphatics were ejective just like Proto-Semitic's.

Yea, and the understanding I've put together (though I've never seen it stated as such) is that pharyngealization might have spread during the era of the Persian empire, with Aramaic pharyngealizing the emphatics, and then Hebrew and Arabic adopting that pronunciation through Aramaic influence. The thing is, I've found no actual dating for the shift, and *every* description of Ugartic I've seen says they're pharyngealized. I'm 90% sure that's just people who don't know better (though, considering they're linguists, they probably should) misapplying modern pronunciation back in time, but I haven't actually seen any arguments specifically for Ugartic.

[Zaarin]

What are some plausible systems for /s θ ʃ/ to decay to, over time? Which of them is most likely to shift to [x]?

I can't top what Nortaneous suggested, but if you want a simpler chain shift, this seems plausible and I'm almost certain I've seen something like it in a Native American language:
/ʃ/ > /x/
/s/ > /ʃ/
/θ/ > /s/

While Modern Hebrew emphatics are often pharyngealized, I'm pretty certain it's generally agreed that Biblical Hebrew's emphatics were ejective just like Proto-Semitic's.

Yea, and the understanding I've put together (though I've never seen it stated as such) is that pharyngealization might have spread during the era of the Persian empire, with Aramaic pharyngealizing the emphatics, and then Hebrew and Arabic adopting that pronunciation through Aramaic influence. The thing is, I've found no actual dating for the shift, and *every* description of Ugartic I've seen says they're pharyngealized. I'm 90% sure that's just people who don't know better (though, considering they're linguists, they probably should) misapplying modern pronunciation back in time, but I haven't actually seen any arguments specifically for Ugartic.

All things considered, it seems most practical just to leave Ugaritic's emphatics at "emphatic," but since Biblical Hebrew and Akkadian are both reconstructed with ejectives I see no reason to reconstruct Ugaritic with anything else, especially since in many other cases it seems strikingly conservative. :/

[Buran]

How likely is it for voiceless stops, which are in opposition to voiced stops, to spontaneously develop aspiration if ejective stops are innovated (i.e. T vs. D becomes Tʰ vs. D vs. Tʼ)?

[WeepingElf]

How likely is it for voiceless stops, which are in opposition to voiced stops, to spontaneously develop aspiration if ejective stops are innovated (i.e. T vs. D becomes Tʰ vs. D vs. Tʼ)?

Not unlikely, I think.

[8Deer]

How likely is it for voiceless stops, which are in opposition to voiced stops, to spontaneously develop aspiration if ejective stops are innovated (i.e. T vs. D becomes Tʰ vs. D vs. Tʼ)?

Seems very plausible. Sotho (possibly other Bantu languages as well?) has a Tʰ vs. D vs. Tʼ contrast for stops. I'm not sure how it originated, but it makes sense for the plain voiceless stops to develop aspiration to make them more distinct from the voiced stops and ejectives.

[Zaarin]

A very slightly off topic question related to Buran's.

I have two adjacent (unrelated) conlangs. On has a plosive series of T Tʰ D, while the other has T Tʼ D. These two languages borrow from each other quite extensively, with the aspirated language being a major source of economic and military terms while the ejective language produces a number of highly valued luxury items. Furthermore many educated speakers of the ejective language are bilingual in the aspirated language. How are these languages likely to borrow these secondary unvoiced consonants? I'm guessing that Tʰ <-> Tʼ is unlikely and that both would probably just be borrowed as T, but I thought I'd check.

[R.Rusanov]

if t and d become ts and dz before high vowels and semivowels, would θ become s?

[SomeUserToo?]

It seems reasonable to me. S is much more 'stable' than þ (the closest I could find to theta), so a pull chain like this would be extremely plausible.

[vokzhen]

How likely is it for voiceless stops, which are in opposition to voiced stops, to spontaneously develop aspiration if ejective stops are innovated (i.e. T vs. D becomes Tʰ vs. D vs. Tʼ)?

Seems very plausible. Sotho (possibly other Bantu languages as well?) has a Tʰ vs. D vs. Tʼ contrast for stops. I'm not sure how it originated, but it makes sense for the plain voiceless stops to develop aspiration to make them more distinct from the voiced stops and ejectives.

It came from Tʰ T D. The plain T series gained glottalization under close contact with non-Bantu languages that have ejectives. At least some Eastern Armenian dialects do the same, under Caucasian influence. (Don't ask me how Sotho got the aspirates, though, I have no idea EDIT: see edit).

For T D becoming Tʰ D T', it sounds plausible. But I was thinking recently and realized apart from Germanic, Celtic, and Armenian, for which we assume a plain voiceless predecessor, I'm not sure I know of languages spontaneously gaining aspiration on a voiceless series. All of the others I know of get it via breathy voice (and, in fact, languages like Korean and Javanese are counterexamples, with the unaspirated "plain" series having stiff voice). It certainly happens allophonically, though, e.g. much of Mesoamerica aspirates a plain series before another stop or word-finally.

A very slightly off topic question related to Buran's.

I have two adjacent (unrelated) conlangs. On has a plosive series of T Tʰ D, while the other has T Tʼ D. These two languages borrow from each other quite extensively, with the aspirated language being a major source of economic and military terms while the ejective language produces a number of highly valued luxury items. Furthermore many educated speakers of the ejective language are bilingual in the aspirated language. How are these languages likely to borrow these secondary unvoiced consonants? I'm guessing that Tʰ <-> Tʼ is unlikely and that both would probably just be borrowed as T, but I thought I'd check.

Kind of depends on what else is allowed in the language, ejection being borrowed as ?T and aspiration as Th or Tx could work if the language already has such clusters. And if it's extensive enough, it may be that the first layer of borrowing just borrows as plain consonants, but that they're under close enough contact that more recent borrowings keep the series intact and they both have T Tʰ T' D (possibly innovating extras as well, such as via the aspiration of stop-stop clusters into aspirate-stop as I gave for Mesoamerica above). If the ejectives are weak (short VOT), they might be borrowed as T or even D, though T T' D series afaik tend to have strong ejection (in which case... maybe they could be borrowed as aspirated due to shared long VOT ? though long VOT in ejectives also generally has very loud burst release, probably not easily confused with aspiration). And you might be able to borrow the aspirates as fricatives.

if t and d become ts and dz before high vowels and semivowels, would θ become s?

I'd say it's probably more likely to stay θ, but either way wouldn't surprise me.

EDIT: Actually, if I'd read a little more of the Wikipedia article of Sotho, I would have noticed before that the Sotho aspirates correspond to Zulu clusters of NK, while Zulu NG clusters are ejective (via plain voiceless) in Sotho. Zulu has their own set of aspirated consonants, though, and I don't know how they got those. Also, aspirating a stop after a nasal? Haven't heard that one before...

[R.Rusanov]

It seems reasonable to me. S is much more 'stable' than þ (the closest I could find to theta), so a pull chain like this would be extremely plausible.

right, but it's not an unconditional change, just before high formants, like japanese or ancient greek

come to think of it, what happened to greek tʰ before w? did it go sʰ > h > Ø?

[hwhatting]

come to think of it, what happened to greek tʰ before w? did it go sʰ > h > Ø?

There seem to be few (no?) examples from which to formulate a rule. From what I've seen, for roots with *d^hVw(C)- / *d^hwV(C), where we could expect *d^hwV- as an ablaut variant, Greek mostly shows either forms of the type *d^hVw- or zero grade *d^hu-C-, which do not create the environment you asked about. I know of only two Greek etymologies where PIE *d^hwV- has been postulated - θολός "mud, dirt" (< *d^hwolo-) and θίς, θινός "heap" (< *d^hwi-). Both are disputed, but both would point to *d^hwV- > Greek tʰV-.

[Zaarin]

A very slightly off topic question related to Buran's.

I have two adjacent (unrelated) conlangs. On has a plosive series of T Tʰ D, while the other has T Tʼ D. These two languages borrow from each other quite extensively, with the aspirated language being a major source of economic and military terms while the ejective language produces a number of highly valued luxury items. Furthermore many educated speakers of the ejective language are bilingual in the aspirated language. How are these languages likely to borrow these secondary unvoiced consonants? I'm guessing that Tʰ <-> Tʼ is unlikely and that both would probably just be borrowed as T, but I thought I'd check.

Kind of depends on what else is allowed in the language, ejection being borrowed as ?T and aspiration as Th or Tx could work if the language already has such clusters. And if it's extensive enough, it may be that the first layer of borrowing just borrows as plain consonants, but that they're under close enough contact that more recent borrowings keep the series intact and they both have T Tʰ T' D (possibly innovating extras as well, such as via the aspiration of stop-stop clusters into aspirate-stop as I gave for Mesoamerica above). If the ejectives are weak (short VOT), they might be borrowed as T or even D, though T T' D series afaik tend to have strong ejection (in which case... maybe they could be borrowed as aspirated due to shared long VOT ? though long VOT in ejectives also generally has very loud burst release, probably not easily confused with aspiration). And you might be able to borrow the aspirates as fricatives.

Consonant clusters are disallowed in the aspirated language (it has a strict CV syllable structure; CVC only occurs in coda), but Tχ would be a possible way to borrow it in the ejective language which has a much more generous syllable structure. I could also see borrowing the aspirates as fricatives--they actually affricate in the post-classical form of the language. And my ejectives are indeed strong ejectives, but I do see how they could be seen as analogous with the aspirates due to VOT. Some good things to think about; thanks.

[Buran]

Actually, if I'd read a little more of the Wikipedia article of Sotho, I would have noticed before that the Sotho aspirates correspond to Zulu clusters of NK, while Zulu NG clusters are ejective (via plain voiceless) in Sotho. Zulu has their own set of aspirated consonants, though, and I don't know how they got those. Also, aspirating a stop after a nasal? Haven't heard that one before...

Maybe Sotho speakers felt that the K stops in NK clusters were not perceptible enough, and increased their markedness by aspirating them. That made the preceding nasal redundant, so it got dropped.

[Nannalu]

I'm developing a lang from Proto-Circassian and I need to ask if a few of these changes are plausible before I go any further:
*qʷ h
*ʔ~qʼ h~∅
*ʔʷ~qʷʼ h~∅
*ʃ: x
*qʷ: x
*ɡʷ h
*ʁ r
*ʁʷ r

[StrangerCoug]

I'm developing a lang from Proto-Circassian and I need to ask if a few of these changes are plausible before I go any further:
*qʷ h
*ʔ~qʼ h~∅
*ʔʷ~qʷʼ h~∅
*ʃ: x
*qʷ: x
*ɡʷ h
*ʁ r
*ʁʷ r

Never seen a fricative become a trill before (the reverse typically happens), but I'm having a hard time coming up with anything inherently wrong.

[jmcd]

I think that even if it would turn into a trill, it would turn into a uvular one. Maybe just maybe an alveolar one later on but not straight away.