Sound Change Quickie Thread

[akam chinjir]

...Oops. s is voiceless, so it's very unlikely that it has its own tone. So when the diagrams show it linked to a low tone, you've got to interpret that as meaning that it tends to lower the pitch of the preceding vowel. But I don't think that changes the results: v́v́s → v́v̀, and v̀v̀s → v̀v̀.

Skipping the diagrams, if you already allow contours, then you should also be able to get v̀v́s → v̀v̀ and v́v̀s → v́v̀, if that's what you want.

[Knit Tie]

In light of my recent questions about English r becoming /j/, how's this for diachronical vowel shifts for future english?

ɪ ʊ ʉ → ɨ; i ɛ → i; ɔ → u; ɑ → ɔ; æ → ɛ; ʌ → a; ə → ∅
oʊ → uː; aɪ → ɛː; eɪ → iː; aʊ → aː; ɔɪ → ɔː; ʊl ʉl oʊl aʊl → ɨː
ɜ˞ → eɪ; ə˞ → ɨɪ; ɑ˞ → aɪ; ɔ˞ → ɔɪ

This is obviously just the default set, which excludes all the conditional shenanigans, such as diphthongs remaining intact if there's a vowel afterwards, final diphthong breaking and other stuff I'm still working on.

[Whimemsz]

Those all look fine

[Knit Tie]

Also, since I ended up having a very sane and basic phonemic inventory with my latest changes, I'm trying to think of a way to spice it up with something crazy without resorting to the usual suspects (i.e. ɬ, ejectives, pharyngeals and so on). To this end, I'm probably going to go with /ŋ/ in onsets and not in codas and /ɮ/ and /ʟ/ as the only laterals in the language, the only issue is that I have no idea how to derive either. Fortition of /l/? /l/ adjacent to velar consonants?

[bradrn]

Also, since I ended up having a very sane and basic phonemic inventory with my latest changes, I'm trying to think of a way to spice it up with something crazy without resorting to the usual suspects (i.e. ɬ, ejectives, pharyngeals and so on). To this end, I'm probably going to go with /ŋ/ in onsets and not in codas and /ɮ/ and /ʟ/ as the only laterals in the language, the only issue is that I have no idea how to derive either. Fortition of /l/? /l/ adjacent to velar consonants?

I know I have allophonic [ʟ~ʟʷ] for /l/ in codaic position. So I have e.g. bell [ˈbe̞ʟ], ball [ˈboːʟʷ], lateral [ˈɫæt͡ʂʷɻʷə̹ʟʷ]. Note that I do have [ɫ] for /l/ outside codas, so potentially it could have originated from trying to further velarize already-velarized *[ɫ] in codas.

...but what's wrong with 'sane and basic' anyway? If you often do crazy phonemic inventories, it might be an interesting change.

[Knit Tie]

Also, since I ended up having a very sane and basic phonemic inventory with my latest changes, I'm trying to think of a way to spice it up with something crazy without resorting to the usual suspects (i.e. ɬ, ejectives, pharyngeals and so on). To this end, I'm probably going to go with /ŋ/ in onsets and not in codas and /ɮ/ and /ʟ/ as the only laterals in the language, the only issue is that I have no idea how to derive either. Fortition of /l/? /l/ adjacent to velar consonants?

I know I have allophonic [ʟ~ʟʷ] for /l/ in codaic position. So I have e.g. bell [ˈbe̞ʟ], ball [ˈboːʟʷ], lateral [ˈɫæt͡ʂʷɻʷə̹ʟʷ]. Note that I do have [ɫ] for /l/ outside codas, so potentially it could have originated from trying to further velarize already-velarized *[ɫ] in codas.

...but what's wrong with 'sane and basic' anyway? If you often do crazy phonemic inventories, it might be an interesting change.

I'm not usually a fan of crazy inventories, preferring minimal ones instead, but yeah, something sane and basic isn't bad, really. Still, having coda /l/ velarise and then phonemise after the grammar shifts into shoving vowel-initial suffixes after everything sounds great, plus having a clear/dark l distinction where the dark l is actually velar is something Ive never thought about, but love immediately.

Thanks!

[Nortaneous]

Also, since I ended up having a very sane and basic phonemic inventory with my latest changes, I'm trying to think of a way to spice it up with something crazy without resorting to the usual suspects (i.e. ɬ, ejectives, pharyngeals and so on).

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ma ... guages.pdf

[bradrn]

[...] having a clear/dark l distinction where the dark l is actually velar is something Ive never thought about, but love immediately.

Thanks!

That's just my normal speech, actually. According to Wikipedia it's fairly standard for Australian English, although I haven't ever heard another person do it. (Maybe it's just that I haven't been listening.)

[Xwtek]

Also, since I ended up having a very sane and basic phonemic inventory with my latest changes, I'm trying to think of a way to spice it up with something crazy without resorting to the usual suspects (i.e. ɬ, ejectives, pharyngeals and so on). To this end, I'm probably going to go with /ŋ/ in onsets and not in codas and /ɮ/ and /ʟ/ as the only laterals in the language, the only issue is that I have no idea how to derive either. Fortition of /l/? /l/ adjacent to velar consonants?

My favourite: dental stop vs alveolar stop (include both, or else it will simply be /t/)

[Nortaneous]

Also, since I ended up having a very sane and basic phonemic inventory with my latest changes, I'm trying to think of a way to spice it up with something crazy without resorting to the usual suspects (i.e. ɬ, ejectives, pharyngeals and so on). To this end, I'm probably going to go with /ŋ/ in onsets and not in codas and /ɮ/ and /ʟ/ as the only laterals in the language, the only issue is that I have no idea how to derive either. Fortition of /l/? /l/ adjacent to velar consonants?

My favourite: dental stop vs alveolar stop (include both, or else it will simply be /t/)

I'm surprised this isn't more common in conlangs - there are dialects of English with this contrast, and in some without it, the interdentals often undergo phonetic fortition to stops that contrast with the alveolar ones.

[Knit Tie]

Also, since I ended up having a very sane and basic phonemic inventory with my latest changes, I'm trying to think of a way to spice it up with something crazy without resorting to the usual suspects (i.e. ɬ, ejectives, pharyngeals and so on). To this end, I'm probably going to go with /ŋ/ in onsets and not in codas and /ɮ/ and /ʟ/ as the only laterals in the language, the only issue is that I have no idea how to derive either. Fortition of /l/? /l/ adjacent to velar consonants?

My favourite: dental stop vs alveolar stop (include both, or else it will simply be /t/)

I'm surprised this isn't more common in conlangs - there are dialects of English with this contrast, and in some without it, the interdentals often undergo phonetic fortition to stops that contrast with the alveolar ones.

Dude, this is genius! And it's not even remotely implausible with my future English - the interdentals can simply fortition into /t̪ d̪/, which will futher complicate the already messy consonant diachronics - definitely a plus in my book - and, since we're talking American English here, it'll prevent [ɾ] from becominɡ a proper phoneme for a while since it'll still be an allophone of alveolar plosives in post-stress intervocalic position, which is also a plus in my book!

Alright, so, to summarise what I'm doing with generic AmEng consonants so far:

mp nt ȵtʃ ŋk → mb nd ȵdʒ ŋɡ → b d dʒ ɡ → p t tʃ k → f ts ʃ x

Which is a pull chain that'll begin with the fortis plosives spirantising and leave the [ɾ] intact. The interdentals' fortition I originally wanted to result in more alveolar plosives to phonemise the flap, but with them becoming dentals instead the flap will remain an allophone of alveolar plosives until the Arabic loans are gonna start coming in. How does this sound in terms of plausibility?

Also, the nasalised flap from the intervocalic /nt/ and /nd/ (i.e. in "international") can later on develop a contrast with the regular flap after the latter gets phonemised by the loans, which will cause it to become a dental nasal to contrast with the existing alveolar one.

Edit: And this even ties in wonderfully with the Arabic influence, since the dental/alveolar contrast can easily be reinterpreted as the normal/emphatic contrast when it comes to Arabic everything. Thanks, guys, this is perfect!

[Xwtek]

My favourite: dental stop vs alveolar stop (include both, or else it will simply be /t/)

I'm surprised this isn't more common in conlangs - there are dialects of English with this contrast, and in some without it, the interdentals often undergo phonetic fortition to stops that contrast with the alveolar ones.

Dude, this is genius! And it's not even remotely implausible with my future English - the interdentals can simply fortition into /t̪ d̪/, which will futher complicate the already messy consonant diachronics - definitely a plus in my book - and, since we're talking American English here, it'll prevent [ɾ] from becominɡ a proper phoneme for a while since it'll still be an allophone of alveolar plosives in post-stress intervocalic position, which is also a plus in my book!

Alright, so, to summarise what I'm doing with generic AmEng consonants so far:

mp nt ȵtʃ ŋk → mb nd ȵdʒ ŋɡ → b d dʒ ɡ → p t tʃ k → f ts ʃ x

Which is a pull chain that'll begin with the fortis plosives spirantising and leave the [ɾ] intact. The interdentals' fortition I originally wanted to result in more alveolar plosives to phonemise the flap, but with them becoming dentals instead the flap will remain an allophone of alveolar plosives until the Arabic loans are gonna start coming in. How does this sound in terms of plausibility?

Also, the nasalised flap from the intervocalic /nt/ and /nd/ (i.e. in "international") can later on develop a contrast with the regular flap after the latter gets phonemised by the loans, which will cause it to become a dental nasal to contrast with the existing alveolar one.

Edit: And this even ties in wonderfully with the Arabic influence, since the dental/alveolar contrast can easily be reinterpreted as the normal/emphatic contrast when it comes to Arabic everything. Thanks, guys, this is perfect!

I think it's more plausible for original alveolar nasal to turn into dental one than original nasalized flaps. Also ð > θ > t̪

[Zaarin]

Also, since I ended up having a very sane and basic phonemic inventory with my latest changes, I'm trying to think of a way to spice it up with something crazy without resorting to the usual suspects (i.e. ɬ, ejectives, pharyngeals and so on). To this end, I'm probably going to go with /ŋ/ in onsets and not in codas and /ɮ/ and /ʟ/ as the only laterals in the language, the only issue is that I have no idea how to derive either. Fortition of /l/? /l/ adjacent to velar consonants?

My favourite: dental stop vs alveolar stop (include both, or else it will simply be /t/)

I'm surprised this isn't more common in conlangs - there are dialects of English with this contrast, and in some without it, the interdentals often undergo phonetic fortition to stops that contrast with the alveolar ones.

The largest conlang family (whether in terms of number of speakers, number of languages, or degree of development) in my main setting distinguishes dental versus alveolar at all modes of articulation (except the rhotic is alveolar and the lateral is dental, but you can consider them anterior/posterior liquids that also differ in their mode of articulation).

[Knit Tie]

I think it's more plausible for original alveolar nasal to turn into dental one than original nasalized flaps. Also ð > θ > t̪

Maybe I'll skip the dental-alveolar distinction in nasals, then. And yeah fortitioning θ and ð to t̪ and d̪ is exactly what I'm going to do.

[Xwtek]

I think it's more plausible for original alveolar nasal to turn into dental one than original nasalized flaps. Also ð > θ > t̪

Maybe I'll skip the dental-alveolar distinction in nasals, then. And yeah fortitioning θ and ð to t̪ and d̪ is exactly what I'm going to do.

But if I see your sound change correctly, is your condialect lost voicing contrast on stops?

[Knit Tie]

I think it's more plausible for original alveolar nasal to turn into dental one than original nasalized flaps. Also ð > θ > t̪

Maybe I'll skip the dental-alveolar distinction in nasals, then. And yeah fortitioning θ and ð to t̪ and d̪ is exactly what I'm going to do.

But if I see your sound change correctly, is your condialect lost voicing contrast on stops?

No, it transitioned previous nasal + lenis sequences into new voiced stops, i.e. "ember" /ˈɛm.bɚ/ became /ibɨj/.

mp nt ȵtʃ ŋk → mb nd ȵdʒ ŋɡ → b d dʒ ɡ → p t tʃ k → f ts ʃ x

It's a bona fide chain shift where the fortis plosives' lenition makes the lenis plosives truly voiceless and creates new voiced ones out of prenasalised lenis consonants to take their place. The remaining prenasalised consonants then simply voice.

[dɮ the phoneme]

More tonogenesis related questions: in another language I'm planing on having glottalized, voiceless, and voiced obstruent codas turn into high, mid, and low tones respectivelty, with the coda consonants then merging as voiceless. Is this realistic? Would this be able to apply through other consonant; i.e., would VNP' VNP VNB > V́NP V̄NP V̀NP, would they instead all end up as low tone, since N is of course voiced?

Also ɸ β > h v?

[Nortaneous]

I think it's more plausible for original alveolar nasal to turn into dental one than original nasalized flaps.

Not in English - there's /nð/ [n̪n̪], but I don't think /n/ would up and become dental. It isn't even dental in Spanish, is it?

[Pabappa]

More tonogenesis related questions: in another language I'm planing on having glottalized, voiceless, and voiced obstruent codas turn into high, mid, and low tones respectivelty, with the coda consonants then merging as voiceless. Is this realistic? Would this be able to apply through other consonant; i.e., would VNP' VNP VNB > V́NP V̄NP V̀NP, would they instead all end up as low tone, since N is of course voiced?

Also ɸ β > h v?

I think nasals could devoice allophonically and thus permit the shift. There aren't too many languages that allow coda clusters and also contrast tone, though.... my first instinct would be to have at least some of the codas disappear, even if they merge with preexisting open syllables.

ɸ β > h v is believable and almost certainly attested. Spanish has initial f>h&v>b, which shows they don't have to behave as a set .

[Kuchigakatai]

I think it's more plausible for original alveolar nasal to turn into dental one than original nasalized flaps.

Not in English - there's /nð/ [n̪n̪], but I don't think /n/ would up and become dental. It isn't even dental in Spanish, is it?

I would say it is in Spanish. I don't personally perceive any difference in the location of my tongue vs. that of [t] and [d] at least.