Sound Change Quickie Thread

[missals]

No, they're different sound changes. Some languages do have this kind of epenthesis/prothesis/excrescence where a final vowel like /u/ gains an offglide that can fortite to a fricative or stop, like u > uw > ug or something.

But there are also changes where coda glides (whether word-final or not, and whether extruded from the preceding vowel or not) can fortite to stops or fricatives. There are certain Romance varieties where preconsonantal coda /j/ becomes /k/. Many languages change a preconsonantal /w/ to a /v/ or /f/. Both can happen.

[akam chinjir]

The paper cedh linked had no > nope as an example of one of those changes.

[Whimemsz]

The paper cedh linked had no > nope as an example of one of those changes.

That's not an actual example of a sound change u# > up#, though, even discounting the vowel height. The paper specifically notes that that's a one-off, irregular development in an interjection, the kind of words that are most likely to undergo irregular phonological developments, feature phones otherwise nonexistent in the language, etc.* Regular epenthesis of a stop like [p] directly from nothing or from a glottal stop, except in consonant clusters, doesn't happen, though it can of course happen as the end result of a fortition process applied to other epenthetic consonants as missals says.


*It also happened in "yep" < "yeah" and "welp" < "well" -- which are even further removed from ending in high vowels -- and is likely specifically from forcefully closing the mouth as gesture of finality/emphasis, which naturally results in a [p]-sound. (Though possibly at least "yep" was influenced/contaminated by "nope," which is attested earlier, which would help explain why it has the vowel of "yes" and not of "yeah." But alternately "yes" could have contaminated "*yeahp.")

[akam chinjir]

Oops, okay.

[alynnidalar]

The paper cedh linked had no > nope as an example of one of those changes.

That's not an actual example of a sound change u# > up#, though, even discounting the vowel height. The paper specifically notes that that's a one-off, irregular development in an interjection, the kind of words that are most likely to undergo irregular phonological developments, feature phones otherwise nonexistent in the language, etc.* Regular epenthesis of a stop like [p] directly from nothing or from a glottal stop, except in consonant clusters, doesn't happen, though it can of course happen as the end result of a fortition process applied to other epenthetic consonants as missals says.


*It also happened in "yep" < "yeah" and "welp" < "well" -- which are even further removed from ending in high vowels -- and is likely specifically from forcefully closing the mouth as gesture of finality/emphasis, which naturally results in a [p]-sound. (Though possibly at least "yep" was influenced/contaminated by "nope," which is attested earlier, which would help explain why it has the vowel of "yes" and not of "yeah." But alternately "yes" could have contaminated "*yeahp.")

Also everyone's Midwestern favorite "ope" (pronounced /oʊp/), another interjection!

[anteallach]

*It also happened in "yep" < "yeah" and "welp" < "well" -- which are even further removed from ending in high vowels -- and is likely specifically from forcefully closing the mouth as gesture of finality/emphasis, which naturally results in a [p]-sound. (Though possibly at least "yep" was influenced/contaminated by "nope," which is attested earlier, which would help explain why it has the vowel of "yes" and not of "yeah." But alternately "yes" could have contaminated "*yeahp.")

I don't know which dialect "yep" originated in, but IMD "yes" and "yeah" have the same vowel.

[Zaarin]

I want to get from /ɒː/ > /eː/. How do I get there?

[missals]

I mean, if you don't have anything in between blocking your way, you can pretty much just go directly: /ɒː/ > /aː/ or /æː/ > /eː/. Or you can raise it first, then front: /ɒː/ > /oː/ > /əː/ or /øː/ > /eː/. All of these are attested. For some reason long vowels just love to front and raise.

And note that any short vowels won't count as "in your way" - as long as you have the length distinction, they won't "collide" with each other. The English historic short and long vowels fling themselves all over the vowel space without hitting each other and merging, because they've still got the length distinction on top of the quality distinction.

[Zaarin]

Brilliant. Thank you.

[Whimemsz]

The paper cedh linked had no > nope as an example of one of those changes.

That's not an actual example of a sound change u# > up#, though, even discounting the vowel height. The paper specifically notes that that's a one-off, irregular development in an interjection, the kind of words that are most likely to undergo irregular phonological developments, feature phones otherwise nonexistent in the language, etc.* Regular epenthesis of a stop like [p] directly from nothing or from a glottal stop, except in consonant clusters, doesn't happen, though it can of course happen as the end result of a fortition process applied to other epenthetic consonants as missals says.


*It also happened in "yep" < "yeah" and "welp" < "well" -- which are even further removed from ending in high vowels -- and is likely specifically from forcefully closing the mouth as gesture of finality/emphasis, which naturally results in a [p]-sound. (Though possibly at least "yep" was influenced/contaminated by "nope," which is attested earlier, which would help explain why it has the vowel of "yes" and not of "yeah." But alternately "yes" could have contaminated "*yeahp.")

Also everyone's Midwestern favorite "ope" (pronounced /oʊp/), another interjection!

Ah! Good catch!

*It also happened in "yep" < "yeah" and "welp" < "well" -- which are even further removed from ending in high vowels -- and is likely specifically from forcefully closing the mouth as gesture of finality/emphasis, which naturally results in a [p]-sound. (Though possibly at least "yep" was influenced/contaminated by "nope," which is attested earlier, which would help explain why it has the vowel of "yes" and not of "yeah." But alternately "yes" could have contaminated "*yeahp.")

I don't know which dialect "yep" originated in, but IMD "yes" and "yeah" have the same vowel.

Fair point.

[bbbosborne]

can a vowel length distinction turn into a tense-lax distinction, at least in unstressed syllables?
e.g. /i iː/ -> /ɪ i/

[Richard W]

can a vowel length distinction turn into a tense-lax distinction, at least in unstressed syllables?
e.g. /i iː/ -> /ɪ i/

A vowel length distinction can turn into a vowel quality distinction; the two often go hand-in-hand. I find tense-lax distinctions hard to believe, as my articulatory organs are tenser for /ɪ/ than for /i/. Is there an IPA symbol to distinguish tenseness?

[bbbosborne]

Not for vowels. consonants can be marked as tense with two excruciatingly small tick marks beneath it, e.g. /p͈/

[Whimemsz]

.

[mèþru]

P.S. get rid of the sig bbbosborne
so many of us keep telling you to do that

[bradrn]

(a) do some basic research on what kinds of sound changes are common cross-linguistically -- many of the questions posted in this thread concern incredibly common types of sound change

As someone who struggles a bit with thinking up interesting yet plausible sound changes, what resources can I use to help with this? The only thing I know about so far is the Index Diachronica, and that often isn't too good as a resource...

[Richard W]

I'm not sure what Richard W. is talking about because English /ɪ/ is absolutely laxer than /i/ (though it's possible, in other languages, for vowels like [i] to be "lax").

I am an English native speaker of English. I feel more muscular effort in [ɪ] than in [ i]. You do not have permission to dissect me. I suspect my /i:/ is rather impure. (The vowels of <beat> and <bid> have about the same length in my lect.)

The first paragraph in the Wikipedia article on Tenseness#Vowels is telling. It reads like the answers in a dialogue:

Q. What are the tense vowels in a language?
A. In general, tense vowels are more close (and correspondingly have lower first formants) than their lax counterparts.

Q. Is ATR the defining difference?
A. Tense vowels are sometimes claimed to be articulated with a more advanced tongue root than lax vowels, but this varies, and in some languages, it is the lax vowels that are more advanced, or a single language may be inconsistent between front and back or high and mid vowels (Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996, 302–4).

Q. Is it muscle tension?
A. The traditional definition, that tense vowels are produced with more "muscular tension" than lax vowels, has not been confirmed by phonetic experiments.

Q. Does it relate to the 'extremeness' of the gesture?
A.Another hypothesis is that lax vowels are more centralized than tense vowels.

Q. Is it a load of baloney?
A. There are also linguists (Lass 1976, 1-39) who believe that there is no phonetic correlation to the tense–lax opposition.

[Raphael]

P.S. get rid of the sig bbbosborne
so many of us keep telling you to do that

Seconded. (Which makes this the second time in a relatively short time period that I'm seconding someone who's saying that.)

[Pabappa]

You missed your chance...couldve removed it for April fools day and then brought it back today

[Whimemsz]

(a) do some basic research on what kinds of sound changes are common cross-linguistically -- many of the questions posted in this thread concern incredibly common types of sound change

As someone who struggles a bit with thinking up interesting yet plausible sound changes, what resources can I use to help with this? The only thing I know about so far is the Index Diachronica, and that often isn't too good as a resource...

Well, reading up on the historical phonologies of some well-attested languages is useful (which the Index Diachronica can be one source for, but I agree it's not ideal, for multiple reasons), and note which changes and types of changes recur. For example, you might notice that fronting of [u] to [ʉ] or [ɨ] or [y] or [i] happens in most dialects of English, in Dutch, in Central and Southeastern Yiddish, in Icelandic, in Faroese (kind of), in French, in Greek, in Albanian, in Slavic, in Dhegihan, in Arapahoan and Cheyenne (kind of), in Dogrib, in Dena'ina, and in Tamil (kind of), among others [and according to the ID, in Rhaeto-Romance, Hiw, Caaàc, Nixumwak-Nêlêmwa, Nyelâyu, Tolomako, and Nisenan]. Once you look at enough you can generally get a decent intuitive feel for it, at least in my experience.

I'd also suggest a basic book on historical linguistics that discusses common sound changes. Personally I really like Hans Heinrich Hock's book which goes quite in-depth on a lot of issues (not just common sound changes). You could also check out Juliette Blevins' Evolutionary Phonology which is partially predicated on determining which kinds of changes are more natural and common than others. (Some of her papers available online cover aspects of the theory.) Finally, I suggest just using common sense. If two sounds are very similar to one another, they can generally change to one another (with caveats!). Lenition processes occur most frequently intervocalically; lenition of any fricative to [h] or any stop to [ʔ] are always possible; long vowels can shorten, especially in checked or unstressed syllables; vowels or consonant series can undergo chain shifts; final consonants or vowels can devoice or be lost; vowels can change quality or rounding based on neighboring vowels (e.g. umlaut such as uCi > yCi).

I'm not sure what Richard W. is talking about because English /ɪ/ is absolutely laxer than /i/ (though it's possible, in other languages, for vowels like [i] to be "lax").

I am an English native speaker of English. I feel more muscular effort in [ɪ] than in [ i]. You do not have permission to dissect me.

Okay, I should modify my statement. I think you were accurate to originally point out that it's better to describe a change like [i: i] > [i ɪ] as being based on length and quality rather than length and "tenseness." I agree that "tense/lax" are vague terms that are essentially language-specific (as the ridiculous and very confused Wikipedia article you quote makes pretty clear). There is, though, a "tradition" in English phonetics to describe the /i/~/ɪ/ etc. oppositions as either "length" oppositions (which isn't really accurate, certainly not anymore for most dialects) or "tense/lax" oppositions, and in that tradition /i/ is "tense" and /ɪ/ is "lax." English "lax" vowels are more centralized, less diphthongized, slightly shorter, possibly articulated with less muscular tension, and possibly with a more retracted tongue root and wider pharyngeal cavity than English "tense" vowels. They also apparently differ in their F1 shape(?).

The main salient difference, I would agree, is vowel quality/position/diphthongization (i.e., they're more centralized and they aren't diphthongs), and everything else is sort of secondary, especially since phoneticians seem to disagree on some of these things. (E.g., Ladefoged and Maddieson claim the lax vowels don't have the same sort of retracted tongue root as is found in true [+ATR] vs [-ATR] languages like Igbo -- specifically that in Igbo etc. the tongue height barely varies for [i̘] vs [i̙] while the tongue root position is substantially different as is the expansiveness of the pharyngeal cavity, while in English, the tongue height varies significantly for [i] vs [ɪ] and the tongue root does show some difference but it's less pronounced and more a result of the tongue height than being the primary distinguishing feature of the vowel, and they also actually say that "in English transverse width [of the pharyngeal region below the epiglottis] is negatively correlated with advancement"!) So what I really should have said was something like "English /ɪ/ is classified as laxer than /i/ but these are basically arbitrary terms that just indicate which of two classes the vowel belongs to for purposes of some phonological processes/restrictions related to syllable structure etc."

All that being said, I do have permission to dissect your statement, because unless you've done instrumental studies of yourself to confirm that you actually are using greater muscular tension [or have a more advanced tongue root or more "tense"-like formants or greater vowel length or whatever else] in production of /ɪ/ than of /i/, then it's just your personal impression, which runs counter to what at least *some* actual phoneticians working on English have published, based on actual scientific studies of English speakers.

I suspect my /i:/ is rather impure. (The vowels of <beat> and <bid> have about the same length in my lect.)

What do you mean by "impure"? And yes I expect they have the same length, because as I said, most English dialects don't actually have a significant "length" distinction between /ɪ/ and "/i:/" anymore. (Although I should temper that a bit, since /i/ is slightly longer than /ɪ/, though context matters: vowels are significantly lengthened before voiced coda consonants, which is why the vowels of /bit/ and /bɪd/ are, at best, about equal in length -- if anything, your "bid" vowel is probably slightly longer than your "beat" one.)