Sound Change Quickie Thread

[spindlestar]

I'm fascinated that the ːʔ seems odd! It feels like the most natural way of simplifying the VhhV cluster to me (in a two step process, where I think the order is probably Vh > Vː, VːhV > VːʔV), but I'm suddenly wondering if that has anything to do with the fact that my dialect of English is one that glottalizes some intervocalic consonants, which I know isn't common in others...

[Travis B.]

I'm working on mangling some morphological boundaries and currently have the following system for getting rid of /h/:

• Ph > Pʰ | stops become aspirated
• Nh > Nː | nasals become geminated (complete assimilation)
• hh > ːʔ | second h becomes a glottal stop; first h vanishes, vowel before takes compensatory lengthening
• Vh > Vː | h vanishes, vowel before takes compensatory lengthening

...all of which are unremarkable. the ones I'm wavering on are the liquids and glides:

• my instinct is to have a lateral fricativize, lh > ɬ
• and I would like to have that be a pattern, so that /r/, /j/, and /w/ also fricativize. currently, the closest representations I can determine for what my tongue wants to do with that is rh > ʐ — jh > ç — wh > ɸ

...but i'd love a reality check on how plausible that feels, particularly with regard to what feels like somewhat inconsistent voicing shifts.

Might I suggest hh > any of x χ ħ ?

[Nortaneous]

h.h > :.h > :.0 > :.?

seems fine

every language has one or two deeply silly sound changes. it's still unknown whether PIE *sw- > Albanian v- (vs. *s- > gj-) as in vajzë or d- as in diell, but either one would be unacceptable in a conlang. I think it's fine if a diachronic conlang has one or two sound changes that don't quite make sense - probably more realistic than not assuming the rest is done well

[WeepingElf]

I'm working on mangling some morphological boundaries and currently have the following system for getting rid of /h/:

• Ph > Pʰ | stops become aspirated
• Nh > Nː | nasals become geminated (complete assimilation)
• hh > ːʔ | second h becomes a glottal stop; first h vanishes, vowel before takes compensatory lengthening
• Vh > Vː | h vanishes, vowel before takes compensatory lengthening

...all of which are unremarkable. the ones I'm wavering on are the liquids and glides:

• my instinct is to have a lateral fricativize, lh > ɬ
• and I would like to have that be a pattern, so that /r/, /j/, and /w/ also fricativize. currently, the closest representations I can determine for what my tongue wants to do with that is rh > ʐ — jh > ç — wh > ɸ

...but i'd love a reality check on how plausible that feels, particularly with regard to what feels like somewhat inconsistent voicing shifts.

Might I suggest hh > any of x χ ħ ?

Makes sense to me. I therefore second this suggestion.

[ophois]

h.h > :.h > :.0 > :.?

seems fine

every language has one or two deeply silly sound changes. it's still unknown whether PIE *sw- > Albanian v- (vs. *s- > gj-) as in vajzë or d- as in diell, but either one would be unacceptable in a conlang. I think it's fine if a diachronic conlang has one or two sound changes that don't quite make sense - probably more realistic than not assuming the rest is done well

*sw- > v-, I can see (w- > v- is very common and the deletion of *s could trigger frication of *w to compensate). *sw- > d- on the other hand... (Also, Sembla underwent f > d, as per the ID, which might be related and serves as an additional example of a silly sound change).

[Travis B.]

h.h > :.h > :.0 > :.?

This only makes sense if A) hiatus is forbidden, and new hiatuses have [ʔ] inserted in them and B) VhV > VʔV.

[bradrn]

h.h > :.h > :.0 > :.?

This only makes sense if A) hiatus is forbidden, and new hiatuses have [ʔ] inserted in them and B) VhV > VʔV.

It does sound like this is the case. In that situation I agree that this is plausible.

[Ahzoh]

/hː/ > /ːʔ/ is plenty plausible.

There is also the route of the elision of "weak consonants" like glides and glottal following a consonant and lengthening previous vowel as happened in Akkadian.

C{j,w,h,ʔ} > ːC

This rule combined with /h/ becoming /ʔ/ under some post-consonantal condition could lead to /hː/ > /ːʔ/

[Raholeun]

I am undecisive on how innovate /ɰ/. Either through sonorizing lenition of velars *ŋ, *k, *h~ɦ, or alternatively loss of syllable final *h, or both in fact.

[Emily]

most obvious routes to me are lenited /ɣ/ or delabialized /w/

[Zju]

I am undecisive on how innovate /ɰ/. Either through sonorizing lenition of velars *ŋ, *k, *h~ɦ, or alternatively loss of syllable final *h, or both in fact.

/l/ → /ɫ/ / _C, _V[-front]
/ɫ/ → /ɰ/

[Travis B.]

I am undecisive on how innovate /ɰ/. Either through sonorizing lenition of velars *ŋ, *k, *h~ɦ, or alternatively loss of syllable final *h, or both in fact.

Like what Zju said, in the dialect of English here [ɰ] is simply from ɫ > ɰ / C_V (postvocalically and intervocalically it is more open and assimilates to preceding vowels' rounding to a degree, word-initially it is in variation with [ʟ̞] depending on stress and carefulness, and when geminate it is [ʟ̞ː], including across word boundaries). Historical [ɫ] is from /l/, of course.

[Man in Space]

Basically an unrounded take on the case of Polish graphemic ł?

[fusijui]

I am undecisive on how innovate /ɰ/. Either through sonorizing lenition of velars *ŋ, *k, *h~ɦ, or alternatively loss of syllable final *h, or both in fact.

I love seeing the differences among how we suggest one option or approach over another For me, sourcing it from a velar nasal immediately seemed like "the most straightforward approach". The others feel kind of exotic and dubious!

[Darren]

k → ɰ by lenition is far from exotic – it happened in Spanish.

/ˈfokus/ → [ˈfu̯eɰo]

[Travis B.]

Basically an unrounded take on the case of Polish graphemic ł?

Yeah. I sometimes wonder whether this pronunciation here in Milwaukee developed under Polish influence, considering the amount of Polish settlement here, but it's probably just a coincidence.

[Travis B.]

k → ɰ by lenition is far from exotic – it happened in Spanish.

/ˈfokus/ → [ˈfu̯eɰo]

Of course, this can be posited as part of a series of changes k > ɡ > ɣ > ɰ, which is far more plausible than a direct change of k > ɰ without the intermediate steps.

[bradrn]

Basically an unrounded take on the case of Polish graphemic ł?

Yeah. I sometimes wonder whether this pronunciation here in Milwaukee developed under Polish influence, considering the amount of Polish settlement here, but it's probably just a coincidence.

Perhaps, but Australian English has /l/-vocalisation too, and I’m not aware of any Polish influence here. I believe it’s pretty widespread across many English dialects.

[Travis B.]

Basically an unrounded take on the case of Polish graphemic ł?

Yeah. I sometimes wonder whether this pronunciation here in Milwaukee developed under Polish influence, considering the amount of Polish settlement here, but it's probably just a coincidence.

Perhaps, but Australian English has /l/-vocalisation too, and I’m not aware of any Polish influence here. I believe it’s pretty widespread across many English dialects.

/l/-vocalization is common in English dialects, but what people seem to find notable about /l/-vocalization in Milwaukee dialect is that it occurs not just in codas but also intervocalically and even in onsets.

[Darren]

Yeah. I sometimes wonder whether this pronunciation here in Milwaukee developed under Polish influence, considering the amount of Polish settlement here, but it's probably just a coincidence.

Perhaps, but Australian English has /l/-vocalisation too, and I’m not aware of any Polish influence here. I believe it’s pretty widespread across many English dialects.

/l/-vocalization is common in English dialects, but what people seem to find notable about /l/-vocalization in Milwaukee dialect is that it occurs not just in codas but also intervocalically and even in onsets.

l > i unconditionally is attested in Central Papuan languages.