Sound Change Quickie Thread

[StrangerCoug]

What do you call /ji/ → /iː/? It's meant to be a regular synchronic sound change in some of my noun declensions when the /j/ follows a consonant (the /j/ is in the stem with the consonant before it, the /i/ is in the case marker), but I swear the general sound change along with /wu/ → /uː/ is common enough to have a name.

[Travis B.]

What do you call /ji/ → /iː/? It's meant to be a regular synchronic sound change in some of my noun declensions when the /j/ follows a consonant (the /j/ is in the stem with the consonant before it, the /i/ is in the case marker), but I swear the general sound change along with /wu/ → /uː/ is common enough to have a name.

Some people claim that [ji] and [wu] cannot contrast with [iː] or [uː], that [j] and [w] are merely syllabic [i] and [u], yet they clearly do. I have never heard of a name for this sound change, yet it must exist in practice somewhere.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

For /ji/ v. /i/, cf. English year v. ear, that we have variants of words like eesh/yeesh that are certainly pronounced differently.

[Creyeditor]

What do you call /ji/ → /iː/? It's meant to be a regular synchronic sound change in some of my noun declensions when the /j/ follows a consonant (the /j/ is in the stem with the consonant before it, the /i/ is in the case marker), but I swear the general sound change along with /wu/ → /uː/ is common enough to have a name.

Some people claim that [ji] and [wu] cannot contrast with [iː] or [uː], that [j] and [w] are merely syllabic [i] and [u], yet they clearly do. I have never heard of a name for this sound change, yet it must exist in practice somewhere.

In Bantu languages, a similar synchronic phonological process is often called 'gliding'. It's not as restricted though.

[evmdbm]

I've been trying to come up with a sound change to wreak havoc with. I'm returning to an old fantasy setting and redoing the language of Notalin, essentially spoken by a race of elves living on an isolated archipelago in the middle of the ocean. I'm aiming for a Norse/old English-y feel to it so I was thinking an i-umlaut would do. It would come into play because of a range of pronominal clitics in use, which are added to the end of verbs to indicate the object and indirect object or to nouns to indicate possession. My question is what changes to what. I have a 9 vowel system

	front unrounded	back unrounded	front rounded	centre rounded	back rounded
high	i		ü		u
mid-high	e			œ	o
low-mid	ê
low	a	æ

I imagine that if an affix with an i raises everything by 1 and fronts back vowels I will end up with

æ---a
o----œ
a----ê
u----ü
ê----e
œ---ü
e-----i
ü-----i

Does this seem right?

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Does this seem right?

It depends on how much havoc you want to wreak. I would say what you have is quite serviceable and plausible, but if you want lots of haovc:

(For purposes of what I'm about to say, I'm assuming graphical ü is probably [ʉ], that œ is [ɵ], that ê is [ɛ] and that æ is [ɐ], just based on their places in the table.)

[ʉ u] > [y]
[e] > [i]
[ɛ] > [e]
[ɵ o] > [ø]
[a ɐ] > [æ]

However..

[a ɐ] then become [æ a], and existing [æ] responds by breaking to [eə] (possibly > [ɛæ] or [aæ], for added Old English flavour);
[ɵ] fronts to [ø], and existing [ø] becomes [œj], or possibly breaks to [eo] or [eø];
[e] in all cases shifts to [i], which pushes [bki]i[/bk] > [ai]; however this change fails to occur on pre-existing [bki]i[/bk] when followed by whatever triggers the i-mutation (possibly having gone through [ai] > [ei] > [bki]i[/bk] diachronically):
[ʉ] fronts to [y], pushing pre-existing [y] to [øy];

So your umlaut pattern becomes:

[æ a] (æ a) > [ɛæ] (ea)
[u y] (u y) > [øy] (eu)
[bki]i[/bk] (i) > [ai] (ai) or no change; the non-changed form might become graphically "ei", however.
[ɛ] (e) > [i] by analogy with [ai] > [ei] > [i] in certain contexts, may be graphically represented as "e" > "ei".
[o ø] (o œ) > [œj~eo~eø] (œi~eo~eœ)

[WeepingElf]

	front unrounded	back unrounded	front rounded	centre rounded	back unrounded
high	i		ü		u
mid-high	e			œ	o
low-mid	ê
low	a	æ

You first have to get that table in order. There are two columns labelled "back unrounded", neither of which seems to contain back unrounded vowels - [æ] is front unrounded, while [o] and [u] are back rounded (assuming that these letters have their usual values).

[evmdbm]

Sorry. The second back unrounded column should be back rounded. Typo. (I hate doing tables; there's always something wrong with them first time round) I've corrected it now, but you both are right that æ does not have its IPA value, but neither does it have it in Icelandic...

(For purposes of what I'm about to say, I'm assuming graphical ü is probably [ʉ], that œ is [ɵ], that ê is [ɛ] and that æ is [ɐ], just based on their places in the table.)

Yes. That's what I meant. Not sure I follow the alternative mind. Are we diphthongising some of these vowels?

[æ a] (æ a) > [ɛæ] (ea)
(u y) > [øy] (eu)
[bki]i[/bk] (i) > [ai] (ai) or no change; the non-changed form might become graphically "ei", however.
[ɛ] (e) > by analogy with [ai] > [ei] > in certain contexts, may be graphically represented as "e" > "ei".
[o ø] (o œ) > [œj~eo~eø] (œi~eo~eœ)

[Kuchigakatai]

For /ji/ v. /i/, cf. English year v. ear, that we have variants of words like eesh/yeesh that are certainly pronounced differently.

I imagine those people probably would counter that the first pair involves r-coloured words, so they're more like [ɪɚ], [jɪɚ].

A better example is eat vs. yeet.

[Travis B.]

A better example is eat vs. yeet.

For my daughter that is a perfect minimal pair between /i/ and /ji/ (it is not for me, as yeet is not part of my vocabulary - lol).

[Travis B.]

For /ji/ v. /i/, cf. English year v. ear, that we have variants of words like eesh/yeesh that are certainly pronounced differently.

I imagine those people probably would counter that the first pair involves r-coloured words, so they're more like [ɪɚ], [jɪɚ].

In the dialect here NEAR can be pronounced two different ways, as a monosyllable [ɪ(ː)ʁˤ] or as a disyllable [iːʁ̩ˤ(ː)]. I personally favor the former, but many people tend to use the latter here.

[linguistcat]

For /ji/ v. /i/, cf. English year v. ear, that we have variants of words like eesh/yeesh that are certainly pronounced differently.

I imagine those people probably would counter that the first pair involves r-coloured words, so they're more like [ɪɚ], [jɪɚ].

In the dialect here NEAR can be pronounced two different ways, as a monosyllable [ɪ(ː)ʁˤ] or as a disyllable [iːʁ̩ˤ(ː)]. I personally favor the former, but many people tend to use the latter here.

I pronounce both words with either one or two syllables and in either case where the syllables match, the only difference is the existence or absence of /j/. So still a case to be made they are minimal pairs, in my idiolect at least

[Travis B.]

I imagine those people probably would counter that the first pair involves r-coloured words, so they're more like [ɪɚ], [jɪɚ].

In the dialect here NEAR can be pronounced two different ways, as a monosyllable [ɪ(ː)ʁˤ] or as a disyllable [iːʁ̩ˤ(ː)]. I personally favor the former, but many people tend to use the latter here.

I pronounce both words with either one or two syllables and in either case where the syllables match, the only difference is the existence or absence of /j/. So still a case to be made they are minimal pairs, in my idiolect at least

Yeah, I will use the disyllabic realization myself when emphasizing a word with NEAR in it.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Not sure I follow the alternative mind. Are we diphthongising some of these vowels?

It was what I was suggesting, yes — that the "umlaut" could happen, but then a chain shift could also happen that affects vowels globally, pushing the previously-modified vowels to end up diphthongs. You wouldn't have to do this, of course, but it could make more havoc.

[Kuchigakatai]

Hear me out, east vs. yeast.

[anteallach]

I don't think there's any dispute that there can be a contrast between /i/ and /ji/; the question is about [i] and [ji].

In my speech (self-analysis alert) I think /j/ becomes slightly fricative before /iː/, e.g. [ʝiːst], but not before any other vowel (including I think the NEAR vowel). Other ways there can be a distinction without a true [i] vs. [ji] include slight diphthongisation of /iː/ (very common in English) or a glottal stop in vowel-initial words but not in ones beginning with /j/. Or perhaps there can be a slight movement of the tongue which isn't enough to take the vowel out of the range which can reasonably be called [i].

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Saying my /ji/ over and over, I think there's some sort of difference of quality between the glide and the vowel. I don't detect any frication, lateralisation, or anything else that would make it more consonant-y.

[bradrn]

Saying my /ji/ over and over, I think there's some sort of difference of quality between the glide and the vowel. I don't detect any frication, lateralisation, or anything else that would make it more consonant-y.

I’m a big proponent of the ‘[j] and [i] are the same thing’ position, but I have to admit that I tried this exercise too and found the same thing. I even tried making a spectrogram, but at first glance that showed no obvious difference. I do wonder if I’m imagining a difference between them where there isn’t one.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I’m a big proponent of the ‘[j] and [i] are the same thing’ position, but I have to admit that I tried this exercise too and found the same thing. I even tried making a spectrogram, but at first glance that showed no obvious difference. I do wonder if I’m imagining a difference between them where there isn’t one.

I tried it a few more times. I think it really is just [i̯iɪ̯], or something like that, to give it a very narrow transcription. Of course, the initial element might actually be [ɪ̯], so slightly lower and more central, but this is such a minor distinction, and the two might even be in free variation for me.

[Travis B.]

Saying my /ji/ over and over, I think there's some sort of difference of quality between the glide and the vowel. I don't detect any frication, lateralisation, or anything else that would make it more consonant-y.

I am the same way; my /j/ here is closer than my /i/, but it is not a fricative or lateral or rhotic or like. At the same time, the vowels in my east and yeast are identical as far I can tell.