Sound Change Quickie Thread

[TomHChappell]

A sample of Leiden Dutch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQUH4di3OOU .

It sounds like he's imitating American English.

I'm sorry, I tried to listen to that to tell whether it sounded to me like American English; but looking at the picnic I just got hungry remembering I haven't eaten since breakfast and it's now 4 in the afternoon.

[Qwynegold]

A sample of Leiden Dutch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQUH4di3OOU .

It sounds like he's imitating American English.

I have question. I haven't been thinking about having this in any particular conlang, I'm just curious to know. Could voiceless consonants of those types that are rare in the world, like [r_0 n_0 j_0] and whatever, turn into breathy voiced consonants? I was trying to pronunce these things but it's so damn hard. Sometimes it seems to be become breathy or something for me.

He isn't, this is the authentic Leids. Other than the weird /r/, many of its features are typical for Southern Hollandic city dialects. Nowadays, Leids is mostly spoken by people from the lower social classes and of course older people, a process happening to many dialects in the Netherlands.

I know. I just said it sounded like. There were parts though were it didn't sounded like that at all, and then there was all the [x] or whatever consonant that was.

I think voiceless nasals are reasonably stable, and don't really sound breathy. The only thing that's unstable about them is that it's hard to differentiate between various voiceless nasals.

Really? Didn't know that.

/j_0/, other than it being hard to explain how it would appear in any phonology in the first place, sounds like it could easily undergo fortition to /ç/. That leaves only [r_0] as likely to produce breathy voicing.

There's some Salishan language or something that has /j_0/. But I don't know about the actual realization of that consonant. So anyway, [r_0] could actually turn into [r_t]? Any other consonants that could go through the same?

[Nortaneous]

j_0 shows up in most langs that have a voiceless approximant series. Kildin Sami is a good example, I think. Also http://web.phonetik.uni-frankfurt.de/S/S0486.html

[zuben]

I have a parent language that highly restricts what consonants can occur at the syllable coda (if any occur at all), specifically, no clusters are allowed and the syllable can only end in a nasal or a sibilant. I would like either the first or second generation daughter languages to have a bit more variety in the coda, but what's a realistic way of achieving this?

[Jetboy]

I have a parent language that highly restricts what consonants can occur at the syllable coda (if any occur at all), specifically, no clusters are allowed and the syllable can only end in a nasal or a sibilant. I would like either the first or second generation daughter languages to have a bit more variety in the coda, but what's a realistic way of achieving this?

Apocope (the loss of word-final vowels) would probably be quite helpful there, as would syncope in final closed syllables.

[Grimalkin]

Very quick question: what's the likelihood of /ŋ/ > /w/ in onset position?

[WeepingElf]

Very quick question: what's the likelihood of /ŋ/ > /w/ in onset position?

Doesn't this have happened in Mandarin Chinese?

[finlay]

Very quick question: what's the likelihood of /ŋ/ > /w/ in onset position?

Doesn't this have happened in Mandarin Chinese?

*Hasn't this happened ...?

[roninbodhisattva]

Very quick question: what's the likelihood of /ŋ/ > /w/ in onset position?

Who cares about the likelihood, it's a fine change.

[Grimalkin]

Sweet!

My language family with 4 branches is beginning to look very healthy indeed.

[----]

If I am thinking right, [j] is like a non-syllabic , and [w] is like a non-syllabic , can this sort of relation be made with other vowels and approximants? If so, which approximants would go with which vowels?

[treskro]

ɥ = y
ɰ =ɯ

[Jetboy]

If I am thinking right, [j] is like a non-syllabic , and [w] is like a non-syllabic , can this sort of relation be made with other vowels and approximants? If so, which approximants would go with which vowels?

/ɰ/ (velar approximant) is the consonantal version of /ɯ/ (back unrounded vowel), and /ɥ/ (labial-palatal approximant) of /y/. I think the low vowels have some correlation with pharyngeals, or something in that area.

[Nortaneous]

and a few langs (Romanian, Tsou) have semivowel versions of /e/, written e̯. Romanian also has o̯

[----]

I thought so about the velar approximant and the labial-palatal approximant. Jetboy mentioned that pharyngeals and stuff around there correlate with low vowels, so could the uvular /ʁ/ correlate with /ɑ/ or something a little higher?

[Cedh]

In many varieties of German, including the media standard, coda /ʁ/ is usually realized as non-syllabic [ɐ̯]. After back vowels this may also come out as [ʌ̯] or [ɑ̯] sometimes.

(Also, the unstressed sequence /əʁ/ is syllabic [ɐ] for most speakers of said varieties (I have [ʌ] myself); this sound still contrasts with plain /ə/.)

[sangi39]

Very quick question: what's the likelihood of /ŋ/ > /w/ in onset position?

Doesn't this have happened in Mandarin Chinese?

*Hasn't this happened ...?

I may have gotten this wrong but aren't the apparent word-initial /ŋ/>/w/ changes more like /ŋ/>0 followed by the addition of /w/ before /ɔ/? So rather than the /w/ directly descending from /ŋ/ it would instead have been a development of /ɔ/, e.g. /ŋɔ/>/ɔ/>/wɔ/?

[finlay]

Could be, but I say go for it – they both have a velar component after all.

[sangi39]

I've been thinking about two series of sound changes and was wondering how likely they might be:

Both start out with /i e u o a i: e: u: o: a:/ followed by the development of an additional qualitative distinction between long and short vowels followed by a loss of length. So the first one is:

/i e u o a/ > /ɨ ɛ ʉ ɵ æ/ > /i æ y ø æ/
/i: e: u: o: a:/ > /i: e: u: o: a:/ > /i e u o a/

... leaving:

/i y u/
/e ø o/
/æ a/

The second is similar in regards to the treatment of short front vowels but differs in the treatment of short back vowels:

/i e u o a/ > /ɨ ɛ ɯ ɤ æ/ > /ɨ e ɨ ə a/
/i: e: u: o: a:/ > /i: e: u: o: a:/ > /i e u o a/

... leaving:

/i ɨ u/
/e ə o/
/a/

As far as I can tell, the results are attested vowels systems (the former being Finnish with the latter being similar to the short vowels of Welsh) but as I said, I'm not sure how likely the sound changes themselves are.

[äreo]

Got a few ideas here, since I'm redoing Määda with a different approach, detailing a protolanguage from which to derive what I like, and with a few different and more exotic sounds. This means I'm limiting the language's unique weirdness to two areas: sounds and verbs, lest it get too kitchensinky. The consonant inventory is largely based on that of Yélî Dnye/Yele, and also on the Gbe languages (somewhat). So here it is:

/m mʷ mʲ mʷʲ n nʲ n͡m ŋ ŋʷ ŋʲ ŋ͡m/
/p pʷ pʲ pʷʲ t tʲ t͡p d dʲ d͡b k kʷ kʲ k͡p/
/β βʲ z zʲ ɣ/
/w̪ l lʲ l͡β j j͡w/

Note that:
-/w/ and labialisation are actually labio-dental, as in Yele.
-n, t, d, and z are dental.
-there is contrastive gemination of all the oral and nasal stops, of which the former may occur initially.

And here are my proposed changes, which would take place over a few hundred years:

/mʷ mʷʲ nʲ ŋʷ ŋʲ pʷ pʲ pʷʲ tʲ dʲ kʷ kʲ β βʲ z zʲ ɣ w̪ lʲ l͡β j j͡w/ > /ʋ̃ ʋ̃ʲ ɲ ʋ̃ z̃ p͡f p͡ç fʲ t͡s d͡z k͡f k͡s ɸ ɸʲ s s h ʋ j β z zʷ/
/pː tː dː kː t͡pː k͡pː mː nː nʲː ŋː ŋʷː ŋʲː n͡mː ŋ͡mː/ > /p͡ɸ t͡θ d͡ð k͡x t͡ɸ k͡ɸ mb nd ɲɟ ŋɡ ʋ̃ː z̃ː n͡md͡b ŋ͡mg͡b/

So is the protolang's consonant set plausible to any degree anyway? And if so, are the changes?

[Jetboy]

@Äreo: I'm not sure if labials can be labialized, so that might cause some problems. They also tend to do very poorly with palatalization, and often lose that feature quickly, reverting to plain labials.

A very quick question; I have a language with /ts/ and /dz/ that then undergoes palatalization and velarization; I know that /dz/ assibilates to /z/, and will probably make that a rule for other voiced affricates. The change would go: /t͡s d͡z t͡sˠ d͡zˠ t͡sʲ d͡zʲ/ > /t͡s z t͡ʃ ʒ t͡x ɣ/, if that last one is even an actual affricate. Anyway, since I don't want to have /t͡ʃ/, would it be reasonable to assibilate it but not the voiceless affricates? Or maybe have it go earlier in a separate change with /d͡ʒ/?

[roninbodhisattva]

@Äreo: I'm not sure if labials can be labialized.

they can be.

[äreo]

@Äreo: I'm not sure if labials can be labialized.

they can be.

And in any case,

-/w/ and labialisation are actually labio-dental, as in Yele.

[Qwynegold]

The change would go: /t͡s d͡z t͡sˠ d͡zˠ t͡sʲ d͡zʲ/ > /t͡s z t͡ʃ ʒ t͡x ɣ/, if that last one is even an actual affricate.

Nope.

I think /tsʲ dzʲ/ would rather result in either /tɕ ʑ/ or /tʃ ʒ/. But since you already have /tʃ ʒ/ from another source, I think /tɕ ʑ/ would quickly merge with them.

[finlay]

The change would go: /t͡s d͡z t͡sˠ d͡zˠ t͡sʲ d͡zʲ/ > /t͡s z t͡ʃ ʒ t͡x ɣ/, if that last one is even an actual affricate.

Nope.

I think /tsʲ dzʲ/ would rather result in either /tɕ ʑ/ or /tʃ ʒ/. But since you already have /tʃ ʒ/ from another source, I think /tɕ ʑ/ would quickly merge with them.

yeah, swap the palatalisation and velarisation and this would make sense. It looks to me like you've just got them back to front. /tx/ is plausible but i dunno if it's an "affricate".