Sound Change Critique Thread

[mèþru]

Seems good.

[dɮ the phoneme]

4. u-mutation:
i e {a æ} → y ø ɔ / _(C)[+vowel, +round]

I might expect /æ/ to pattern with /e/ here, but I don't think what you have is wrong per se.

Fair enough.

The rest looks fine to me. End result looks rather Uralic sans vowel harmony.

I was going for a somewhat Uralic vibe, so that's good to hear!

[bradrn]

I think I'll end up doing this:

p b t d k ɡ > f v s z x ɣ / V_V Leave as-is
x ɣ > j Leave as-is
w > v / V_C or V_# Leave as-is
æ e i ɯ > e i ɨ ɨ Leave as-is
ej > i / _# Leave as-is
i > ɨ / j_ or _j Leave as-is
s z > ʃ ʒ / _i Modify to include affricatives: s z t͡s d͡z > ʃ ʒ t͡ʃ d͡ʒ
consonants next to each other turn into geminates (e.g. inkɨ > inːɨ) I really still have no idea what to do about this one. Options include: removing; restricting to apply only to some consonants; splitting into multiple changes for various CC pairs; other possibilities I haven't included.
V > ∅ / _# Leave as-is
ts dz > s z Remove, as a modification to a previous rule has already removed ts, dz
j > ∅ / V_C I don't know; this could be removed, but it depends what happens with the gemination
ʔ > ∅ / next to consonants or at word end Again, depends on gemination

[Pabappa]

Spoiler tag is the "more" button now.

[Richard W]

I'm not sure a geminate glottal stop is even possible--if it were, I'd think Semitic would allow it, which it doesn't.

It definitely exists in Classical Arabic.

[Zaarin]

I'm not sure a geminate glottal stop is even possible--if it were, I'd think Semitic would allow it, which it doesn't.

It definitely exists in Classical Arabic.

That would explain a lot: Arabic is the non-Ethiopian Semitic language I know the least about (barring Old South Arabian and Modern South Arabian, but not for lack of trying...).

[dɮ the phoneme]

How about these?

Starting inventory:

Code: Select all

p	t	tʃ	k
ᵐb	ⁿd	ⁿdʒ	ᵑg
f	s	ʃ	x
m	n
	r	j	w
	l
i		u	+length
ɛ		ɔ~ɒ
	a

(C)(C)V(C) syllables.

Changes:

C > Cˤ / _{ɔ a}
{ɛ̆ ɔ̆ ă} ɛ̄ ɔ̄ > ə ī ū
V̄ > V̆
V > ∅ / _V
V > ∅ / _[+stress]
j w > i u / C_C
jə wə > e o
əj əw > e o (ordering is relevant here, since e.g. əjə > ae, not **ea)
ə > e / [+velar, -pharyngeal]_
ə > o / [+labial]_
ə > a
voicing assimilates forward among obstruents
[+obstr.] > [-voice] / syllabl final

Code: Select all

p	pˤ	t	tˤ	tʃ	tʃˤ	k	kˤ~q
ᵐb	ᵐbˤ	ⁿd	ⁿdˤ	ⁿdʒ	ⁿdʒˤ	ᵑg	ᵑgˤ~ᶰɢ
f	fˤ	s	sˤ	ʃ	ʃˤ	x	xˤ~ħ
m	mˤ	n	nˤ
		r	rˤ	j	jˤ	w	wˤ
		l	lˤ
i		u
e		e
	a

[mèþru]

ə > e / [+velar, -pharyngeal]_
ə > o / [+labial]_
ə > a

I would expect velars to colour [ə] into a back vowel like /ɑ/, and palatals to colour it as /e/ or /i/.
Also, I'm not sure if /jˤ/ is possible as a stable phoneme or not.

[dɮ the phoneme]

ə > e / [+velar, -pharyngeal]_

I was justifying this as assimilation, with velars underlyingly [+high], cf. k > j /V_C in various languages.

[dɮ the phoneme]

Begining with the following initial inventory, how do these changes look?

Code: Select all

Old Northwest Shorzhic

p	t	ts	tʃ	tɕ	k
pː	tː				kː
b	d	dz	dʒ	dʑ	g
ɸ		s	ʃ	ɕ	x	h
ɸː		sː
β		z	ʒ	ʑ	ɣ
m	n				ŋ
	r	l	j		w
i	iː			u	uː
ɛ	eː	ɐ	ɐː	ɔ	oː
		a	aː
ɛi	ɔu	ai	au	ɔi	ɐu

The nasals and liquids can all be syllabic.

Labialization

[+velar] > [+labialized] / _[+syllabic, +round]

Final Vowel Laxing

Word finally in multisyllabic words:

[+vowel, -long] > ∅

{iː eː} {uː oː} {ɐː aː} > ɪ ʊ ə

{ɛi ai ɔi} {ɔu au ɐu} > ɛ ɔ

Breaking

iː uː eː oː ɐː aː > ie uo ea oa ɨa aɨ

Coda Neutralization

[+obstr.] > [-voice] / in coda

[+plosive] [+sibilant] [-sibilant, +fricative] → ʔ s h / V_C

Tonogenesis

V Vʔ Vs Vh > V(tone 1) V(tone 2) V(tone 3) V̤(tone 4) / _{C, #}

Geminates induce tone 5 on the preceding vowel. I'm just numbering the tones so as to be agnostic about their actual values.

Here, V may be a true vowel, or a syllabic liquid or nasal

Debaucalization

h {x ɸ(ː)} > ∅ h

Labialization 2

[+labiovelar] > [+labial, -velar]

Misc.

β ɣ > f x

Degimination

Cː > C

This all gives the following inventory:

Code: Select all

Early Middle Northwest Shorzhic

p	t	ts	tʃ	tɕ	k
b	d	dz	dʒ	dʑ	g
f		s	ʃ	ɕ	x	h
		z	ʒ	ʑ	ɣ
m	n				ŋ
	r	l	j		w
i		u
ɛ	ɐ	ɔ
	a
ɛi	ɔu	ai	au	ɔi	ɐu
ie	uo	ea	oa	ɨa	aɨ

tones 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5

The nasals and liquids can all be syllabic.

So we have:

bleːɣno > blea̤n⁴
sulaː > su¹lə¹
mwapːwaːl > mwa⁵pwaɨl¹
ŋuʃɣo > ŋuf³
xaːrfːa > xaɨrf⁵
toːtɕhe > tuo³

[bradrn]

As can be seen above, I'm probably not the best person to review sound changes. But I still have a few questions/clarifications:

Code: Select all

Old Northwest Shorzhic

p	t	ts	tʃ	tɕ	k
pː	tː	tsː	tʃː	tɕː	kː
b	d	dz	dʒ	dʑ	g
ɸ		s	ʃ	ɕ	x	h
ɸː		sː
β		z	ʒ	ʑ	ɣ
m	n				ŋ
	r	l	j		w
i	iː			u	oː
ɛ	eː	ɐ	ɐː	ɔ	oː
		a	aː
ɛi	ɔu	ai	au	ɔi	ɐu

The nasals and liquids can all be syllabic.

Is there any particular reason that voiceless consonants have geminates but voiced ones don't? Also, you've listed /oː/ twice.

Labialization

[+velar] > [+labialized] / [+syllabic, +round]

Shouldn't this change have an underscore somewhere?

{iː eː}{uː oː}{ɐː aː} > ɪ ʊ ə

{ɛi ai ɔi} {ɔu au ɐu} > ɛ ɔ

Maybe you should edit your post to add some spaces in that first rule — at first I thought you were talking about sequences of three long vowels like /iːuːɐː/.

So we have:

bleːɣno > blie̤n⁴

When I try this, I get bleːɣno > bleːɣn > bleaɣn > bleaxn > bleahn > blea̤n⁴. So either I've made a mistake somewhere (most likely), you've made a mistake here, or you've forgotten a rule (which I doubt).

[dɮ the phoneme]

Ah, thanks for alerting me to those typos! They are fixed now.

The reason there are only voiceless geminates is because they actually descend from an earlier 'fortis' series, which contrasted with the plain voiceless obstruents as well as the voiced ones. In some dialects they were realized as ejectives, but in Old Northwest Shorzhic the were geminated. This is also why I list them as seperate phonemes in the chart; for all phonological intents and purposes, the geminates are another obstruent series, alongside voiced and voiceless.

Actually, I just realized that /ts tʃ tɕ/ should have lost their fortis counterparts before the Old Shorzhic period! I'll fix that in an edit.

[Xwtek]

Does morphological alternation/apophony count? My language has heavy morphological alternations, from consonant assimilation, consonant harmony, to vowel harmony.

[Xwtek]

Ah, thanks for alerting me to those typos! They are fixed now.

The reason there are only voiceless geminates is because they actually descend from an earlier 'fortis' series, which contrasted with the plain voiceless obstruents as well as the voiced ones. In some dialects they were realized as ejectives, but in Old Northwest Shorzhic the were geminated. This is also why I list them as seperate phonemes in the chart; for all phonological intents and purposes, the geminates are another obstruent series, alongside voiced and voiceless.

Actually, I just realized that /ts tʃ tɕ/ should have lost their fortis counterparts before the Old Shorzhic period! I'll fix that in an edit.

If fortis were ejective, it's more likely that /p'/ and /t/ lost it than /ts'/, /tʃ'/ and /tɕ'/.

[bradrn]

Ah, thanks for alerting me to those typos! They are fixed now.

The reason there are only voiceless geminates is because they actually descend from an earlier 'fortis' series, which contrasted with the plain voiceless obstruents as well as the voiced ones. In some dialects they were realized as ejectives, but in Old Northwest Shorzhic the were geminated. This is also why I list them as seperate phonemes in the chart; for all phonological intents and purposes, the geminates are another obstruent series, alongside voiced and voiceless.

Actually, I just realized that /ts tʃ tɕ/ should have lost their fortis counterparts before the Old Shorzhic period! I'll fix that in an edit.

If fortis were ejective, it's more likely that /p'/ and /t/ lost it than /ts'/, /tʃ'/ and /tɕ'/.

Why is this? I thought that ejective plosives are more common than ejective affricatives (although looking at PHOIBLE and Wikipedia this may be misguided).

Does morphological alternation/apophony count? My language has heavy morphological alternations, from consonant assimilation, consonant harmony, to vowel harmony.

Did you accidentally post this in the wrong thread? I ask because it seems unrelated to anything else here.

[Xwtek]

Ah, thanks for alerting me to those typos! They are fixed now.

The reason there are only voiceless geminates is because they actually descend from an earlier 'fortis' series, which contrasted with the plain voiceless obstruents as well as the voiced ones. In some dialects they were realized as ejectives, but in Old Northwest Shorzhic the were geminated. This is also why I list them as seperate phonemes in the chart; for all phonological intents and purposes, the geminates are another obstruent series, alongside voiced and voiceless.

Actually, I just realized that /ts tʃ tɕ/ should have lost their fortis counterparts before the Old Shorzhic period! I'll fix that in an edit.

If fortis were ejective, it's more likely that /p'/ and /t/ lost it than /ts'/, /tʃ'/ and /tɕ'/.

Why is this? I thought that ejective plosives are more common than ejective affricatives (although looking at PHOIBLE and Wikipedia this may be misguided).

While /k'/ is the most common ejective, It is unusual for a language not to have ejective affricate. In fact, many languages have just /k'/ and ejective affricates. While /p'/ tends to merge with /p/, /t'/ tends to be affricated.

Does morphological alternation/apophony count? My language has heavy morphological alternations, from consonant assimilation, consonant harmony, to vowel harmony.

Did you accidentally post this in the wrong thread? I ask because it seems unrelated to anything else here.

No, I mean I have a list of sound change solely for morphological alternation. The language is language isolate, so there is no proto-language.

[bradrn]

While /k'/ is the most common ejective, It is unusual for a language not to have ejective affricate. In fact, many languages have just /k'/ and ejective affricates. While /p'/ tends to merge with /p/, /t'/ tends to be affricated.

That's interesting! I always thought that ejective affricatives were just as rare as ejective fricatives — thanks for correcting me! I'll definitely keep this in mind if I ever create a language with ejectives.

Does morphological alternation/apophony count? My language has heavy morphological alternations, from consonant assimilation, consonant harmony, to vowel harmony.

Did you accidentally post this in the wrong thread? I ask because it seems unrelated to anything else here.

No, I mean I have a list of sound change solely for morphological alternation. The language is language isolate, so there is no proto-language.

If I'm interpreting you correctly: you have a set of sound changes used for morphophonological alternation, and you want to know whether you can post it here? It's slightly off-topic, but as the creator of the thread I would say it's fine to post them here.

[dɮ the phoneme]

Ah, thanks for alerting me to those typos! They are fixed now.

The reason there are only voiceless geminates is because they actually descend from an earlier 'fortis' series, which contrasted with the plain voiceless obstruents as well as the voiced ones. In some dialects they were realized as ejectives, but in Old Northwest Shorzhic the were geminated. This is also why I list them as seperate phonemes in the chart; for all phonological intents and purposes, the geminates are another obstruent series, alongside voiced and voiceless.

Actually, I just realized that /ts tʃ tɕ/ should have lost their fortis counterparts before the Old Shorzhic period! I'll fix that in an edit.

If fortis were ejective, it's more likely that /p'/ and /t/ lost it than /ts'/, /tʃ'/ and /tɕ'/.

The fortis series is realized as ejectives in a different dialect; here they are geminates, and an earlier stage of the language had something like

tsː tʃ tɕː (realized as [tts ttʃ ttɕ]) > sts ʃtʃ ɕtɕ > sː ʃː ɕː

then there was a later chain shift

ʃ ɕ > ʂ > h
ʃː ɕː > ʃ ɕ

resulting in the inventory I posted for ONWS

[bradrn]

Hopefully it’s fine if I resurrect this thread! (Especially since I’m the one who created it…)

Anyway, after thinking for a while about the highly implausible sound changes I posted earlier, I decided to start all over again. So, here’s the latest set of changes for you to review:

Starting phonology:

Code: Select all

m  n
p  t     k  ʔ
b  d     ɡ
   ts    
   dz    
   s     x
   z     ɣ
w  ɹ  j
   l

i   ɯ u
e     o
æ
   a

Phonotactics: (C)V(C) syllables with vowel hiatuses forbidden (so /kaʔes/ is fine but */kaes/ is not)

Sound changes:

1. ∅ → j / #_[-rounded], ∅ → w / #_[+rounded]
2. {æ,ɯ} → {ə,ɨ} / _
3. {aw, ew, əw, iw, ɨw, uy} → {oː, uː, uː, ju, ju, wi} / _{C,#}
4. ʔ → ∅ / _
5. In clusters, non-glottal obstruents assimilate to the voicing state of the following consonant
   (e.g. /asda/ → /azda/, /aɣsa/ → /axsa/ but /amta/ doesn’t change)
6. Identical vowel sequences lengthen
   (e.g. /aa/ → /aː/; not sure whether to list this, since the input and output are pronounced identically)
7. [-long+vowel] C C → [+long+vowel] C / when the Cs are the same
   (e.g. /massi/ → /maːsi/)
8. ɣ → ŋ / _
9. {t͡s,d͡z,s,z} → {s,z,θ,ð} / _
10. w → ɡ / [-round+vowel]_[-round+vowel]
11. t → s / V_#
12. n → ∅ / _[+alveolar or +dental]
13. Nasal consonant clusters assimilate to the POA of the final nasal (e.g. /wonŋip/ → /woŋŋip/)
14. {o,u} → {ə,ɨ} / _(C)(C)[-round+vowel]
    (note: still not sure whether to have this apply to short /o u/ only or also long /oː uː/ — which variant is more plausible?)
15. [-long+vowel] → ∅ / VC_#
16. x → ʃ / _
    (note: I already have confirmation that this one is plausible)
17. [+vowel-low-rounded] → j / C_V (i.e. applies to {e,ə,i,ɨ}, which at this point are the non-low non-rounded vowels)

Resulting phonology:

Code: Select all

m     n     ŋ
p     t     k
b     d     ɡ
   θ  s
   ð  z
w     ɹ  j
      l

i  ɨ  u
e  ə  o
   a

iː ɨː uː
eː əː oː
   aː
+ ae ai ao au aə aɨ ou uo, not sure yet whether I want these to be diphthongs or not

Phonotactics: (C)(w,y)V(C), consonant clusters must agree in voicing (and in POA if of nasal consonants)

[Whimemsz]

Looks good to me.

• {o,u} → {ə,ɨ} / _(C)(C)[-round+vowel]
  (note: still not sure whether to have this apply to short /o u/ only or also long /oː uː/ — which variant is more plausible?)

Well, it's probably somewhat more likely that it would only apply to short vowels, but there's no reason it can't apply to both short and long vowels; both changes are plausible enough.