Sound Change Quickie Thread

Conworlds and conlangs
Qwynegold
Posts: 735
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2018 3:03 pm
Location: Stockholm

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Qwynegold »

Surely he was joking, right?
Nortaneous
Posts: 1660
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2018 3:29 am

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Nortaneous »

Besides narrow phonetic transcription, is there ever a case where the two need to be distinguished? Are there any languages that contrast the two?
Duaj teibohnggoe kyoe' quaqtoeq lucj lhaj k'yoejdej noeyn tucj.
K'yoejdaq fohm q'ujdoe duaj teibohnggoen dlehq lucj.
Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq.
User avatar
Tropylium
Posts: 182
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 1:53 am
Location: Halfway to Hyperborea

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Tropylium »

Even if they don't, they still seem to have slightly different diachronic behavior due to different values of ±obstruent: ɬ <> s, ɬ <> tɬ or ɬ > t are common, ditto l̥ > h or l̥ <> hl, but probably not most of the opposite options without an l̥ <> ɬ overpass first.

In other words, if we need to keep fricatives and approximants apart in general (at least l – ɮ, ʋ – v, w – ɣʷ are attested contrasts), why not here too?
User avatar
missals
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:14 pm

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by missals »

I find that a lot of newbie conlangers are extremely reticent and unconfident about what kinds of sound changes are plausible. I guess because they don't yet have an understanding of what makes sound changes plausible.

If you don't have a basic understanding of articulatory and acoustic phonetics, the idea that l̥ > ɬ is obviously naturalistic and plausible might as well be just as opaque and arbitrary - or just as sensible - as saying that ʃ > ʄ or ɣ > ʎ are realistic. After all, they're just pairs of kinda similar-looking symbols, right?
User avatar
McGee
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2019 2:49 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by McGee »

I know /kw/ can become /p/ but is it possible for /p/ to become /kw/? If it can, then is it also possible for /kw/ to become /kʲ/?
User avatar
Pabappa
Posts: 1359
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 11:36 am
Location: the Impossible Forest
Contact:

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Pabappa »

McGee wrote: Sun Feb 24, 2019 7:26 pm I know /kw/ can become /p/ but is it possible for /p/ to become /kw/? If it can, then is it also possible for /kw/ to become /kʲ/?
/pʷ/ > /kʷ/ is sometimes posited for Oceanic languages, but Im skeptical. It could have been the other way around, with the shift of /kʷ/ > /pʷ/ occuring more than once. I'd think kʷ>pʷ twice, or even several times, is more likely than pʷ>kʷ once. There is /p/ > /q/ in a Native American family which is claimed to have lost its labial consonants as the speakers took to wearing elaborate lip jewelry. Perhaps a roundabout shift like /p > f > hʷ > kʷ/ would work, but youd have to have a conditioning environment for the last step or else explain why a fricative suddenly strengthened into a stop. (Not impossible but uncommon.)

I dont think /kw/ > /kʲ/ would work either unless you also push the regular /k/ up with it. I'll add, though, that I'm noticing I'm a skeptic on sound changes in general, so perhaps someone else will find a way that I can't think of.
User avatar
Whimemsz
Posts: 225
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2018 4:53 pm

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Whimemsz »

.
Last edited by Whimemsz on Sun Jun 07, 2020 6:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Man in Space
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2018 1:05 am

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Man in Space »

I want to say that *kw > p occurred somewhere in Chibchan, so it’s attested in the New World too.
User avatar
Whimemsz
Posts: 225
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2018 4:53 pm

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Whimemsz »

Pogostick Man wrote: Sun Feb 24, 2019 10:48 pm I want to say that *kw > p occurred somewhere in Chibchan, so it’s attested in the New World too.
Yeah, from the posts I quoted it looks like it's also attested in some Zapotecan varieties and in Tlapanec. (And Tohono O'odham, Mayo, Yaqui, and all of Muskogean except Creek come close, with b or bʷ as the result.) (Actually...checking the book chapter I have on Muskogean historical phonology, Creek has *kʷ > p intervocalically, it just has *kʷ > k initially, if I'm understanding the developments correctly. The wording isn't entirely clear.)
User avatar
McGee
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2019 2:49 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by McGee »

Whimemsz wrote: Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:51 pm A general shift of /kw/ > /kʲ/ is possible. The Plains Algonquian languages merged */w/ and */j/ to /j/ to varying degrees, so you're basically talking about a change of /w/ > /j/ after /k/ (though you may want to have that semivowel merger happen more widely for it to be more plausible).
Wide is my aim. I'm trying to collapse a labial series. My current thought is this: /p p' f m/ > [kʷ kʷ' xʷ ŋʷ]. Then the labialization would be lost on the fricatives [x ŋ]. Then perhaps your proposed merger of /w j/ > /j/, resulting in /kʲ kʲ'/?
Nortaneous
Posts: 1660
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2018 3:29 am

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Nortaneous »

Whimemsz wrote: Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:51 pm I don't understand what's supposed to be implausible about /pʷ/ > /kʷ/. They're quite similar acoustically and not that different articulatorily, and you accept that the reverse is plausible (this isn't like a debuccalization change where the shift almost always goes in one direction, this is just an instance of two very similar sounds switching places, so the plausibility of /kʷ/ > /pʷ/ implies the plausibility of /pʷ/ > /kʷ/).
Well, many Oceanic languages develop a pʷ series, and I don't know of any examples of pʷ > k(ʷ) there, even though there are Oceanic languages with t > k.
Duaj teibohnggoe kyoe' quaqtoeq lucj lhaj k'yoejdej noeyn tucj.
K'yoejdaq fohm q'ujdoe duaj teibohnggoen dlehq lucj.
Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq.
User avatar
Whimemsz
Posts: 225
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2018 4:53 pm

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Whimemsz »

Nortaneous wrote: Mon Feb 25, 2019 11:54 am
Whimemsz wrote: Sun Feb 24, 2019 9:51 pm I don't understand what's supposed to be implausible about /pʷ/ > /kʷ/. They're quite similar acoustically and not that different articulatorily, and you accept that the reverse is plausible (this isn't like a debuccalization change where the shift almost always goes in one direction, this is just an instance of two very similar sounds switching places, so the plausibility of /kʷ/ > /pʷ/ implies the plausibility of /pʷ/ > /kʷ/).
Well, many Oceanic languages develop a pʷ series, and I don't know of any examples of pʷ > k(ʷ) there, even though there are Oceanic languages with t > k.
There are supposedly a few examples; not many, since Proto-Oceanic didn't have many etyma with *pʷ, though it had plenty with *bʷ and in several languages this changed to gʷ or kʷ or a coarticulate:
Malcolm Ross, "Proto-Oceanic *kʷ", Oceanic Linguistics 50(1), 2011 wrote: A number of Oceanic languages have rounded velars, like /kʷ/, /gʷ/, /ŋʷ/, or labiovelars, like /k͡p/, /g͡b/, /ŋ͡m/, but these have not been reconstructed for POc. One reason for this is that, in a number of languages, rounded velars or labiovelars reflect the POc rounded bilabials. In the northern Malaitan languages of Southeast Solomonic, namely North Malaitan, Kwara’ae, Lau, Kwai, Kwaio, and Dori‘o, /gʷ/ reflects POc *bʷ. In the northernmost of these languages, North Malaitan and Kwara’ae, /ŋʷ/ reflects POC *mʷ (in the others /w/ reflects *mʷ). POc *bʷ and *mʷ are also reflected as /gʷ/ and /ŋʷ/, respectively, in Western Fijian dialects and in dialects of southeastern Viti Levu (Geraghty 1983:42–50) and Beqa island, to the south of Viti Levu (Paul Geraghty, pers. comm.). POc *bʷ and *mʷ are reflected as /kʷ/ and /ŋʷ/ in the Torres Islands languages Hiw and Lo-Toga and the Banks Islands languages Lehali and Mwerlap of north Vanuatu; they are reflected as /k͡pʷ/ and /ŋ͡mʷ/ in other Banks languages (Alexandre François, pers. comm.). POc *bʷ and *mʷ are reflected sporadically as /ᵑg/ and /ŋ/, presumably from earlier /ᵑgʷ/ and /ŋʷ/, in Jawe of New Caledonia, and regularly as /gʷ/ and /ŋʷ/ in the New Caledonian language Pwapwâ. Firm reconstructions containing POC *pʷ are few (Lynch 2002:315), but its few reflexes indicate that it is at least sometimes reflected as /kʷ/ in northern Malaitan languages and in those Fijian dialects that have distinct reflexes of the POc rounded bilabials.
Unfortunately Ross doesn't give any actual examples, and when I just searched through Ross, Pawley, and Osmond's The lexicon of Proto Oceanic: 2: The physical environment the words with *pʷ either lacked a reflex in one of the relevant languages, or the reflex was NOT /kʷ/. But the book was published in 2003, before Ross' article, and also the 2002 article by Lynch that he cites lists the reflex of *pʷ in Lau as "k,kʷ." Although Lynch's actual article shows that it's more complicated than that because *pʷ and *p merge before rounded vowels, plus additional complications ... there are still some examples in the appendix: *pʷake "k.o. green food" > Lau kʷake "greens," Kwaio kʷaʔe "tree fern (Cyathea sp.)"; *pʷalaq "split (wood+)" > Pwapwâ ᵑgana. A lot of the forms look pretty weak to me though, and don't all have the same reflex all the time, so I dunno......
Nortaneous
Posts: 1660
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2018 3:29 am

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Nortaneous »

Clicking around in ABVD, it looks like Hiw /kʷ/ corresponds regularly to Lemerig /kpʷ/, which is probably from an original rounded labial.
Duaj teibohnggoe kyoe' quaqtoeq lucj lhaj k'yoejdej noeyn tucj.
K'yoejdaq fohm q'ujdoe duaj teibohnggoen dlehq lucj.
Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq.
User avatar
bbbosborne
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 6:02 pm

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by bbbosborne »

can /ʃl/ -> /ɬ/?
when the hell did that happen
User avatar
Whimemsz
Posts: 225
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2018 4:53 pm

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Whimemsz »

yes
User avatar
StrangerCoug
Posts: 168
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 5:11 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by StrangerCoug »

How common is metathesis from fricative-stop to stop-fricative across syllable boundaries?
User avatar
Whimemsz
Posts: 225
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2018 4:53 pm

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Whimemsz »

It has certainly happened but it's not common, and I'm not aware of any examples where it happened for ALL instances of intervocalic F+S. Juliette Blevins and Andrew Garrett's chapter "The Evolution of Metathesis" in Phonetically Based Phonology (2004) lists several examples of (regular) stop and fricative metathesis, but only three examples actually involve original F+S sequences as opposed to original S+F sequences, and of these three, (a) all of them only apply to one specific fricative+stop cluster, and (b) only one of them actually occurs intervocalically, across a clear syllable boundary. (The example is Late West Saxon, which regularly metathesized OE -sk- to -ks- ... but not any other F+S sequences.) On the other hand, I note all their examples are from IE or Semitic languages, so it's certainly possible this has happened in less well-studied families. It's definitely not common though.
Nortaneous
Posts: 1660
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2018 3:29 am

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by Nortaneous »

iirc interchange between /st/ and /ts/ happens in NEC
Duaj teibohnggoe kyoe' quaqtoeq lucj lhaj k'yoejdej noeyn tucj.
K'yoejdaq fohm q'ujdoe duaj teibohnggoen dlehq lucj.
Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq. Teijp'vq.
bradrn
Posts: 6257
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2018 1:25 am

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by bradrn »

Would it be reasonable to have ʔ → k between vowels but ʔ → Ø everywhere else? e.g. maʔ → ma, amasʔe → amase, but paʔel → pakel.
Conlangs: Scratchpad | Texts | antilanguage
Software: See http://bradrn.com/projects.html
Other: Ergativity for Novices

(Why does phpBB not let me add >5 links here?)
gestaltist
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2018 7:25 am

Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread

Post by gestaltist »

bradrn wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2019 1:55 am Would it be reasonable to have ʔ → k between vowels but ʔ → Ø everywhere else? e.g. maʔ → ma, amasʔe → amase, but paʔel → pakel.
I've never seen the glottal stop to fortite to /k/ so not sure.
Post Reply