Sound Change Quickie Thread

[dɮ the phoneme]

How plausible would it be to have a consonant appear out of nowhere after word-final /u/?

Some French speakers apparently have i > iç /_# or something similar, so who knows.

[Raphael]

Thank you, everyone!

[Qwynegold]

From syllable final /Vs Vh Vw Vj Vʔ Vn Vns Vnʔ Vwʔ Vjʔ/, how can I get rhotacized vowel? It doesn't have to affect all of them, as long as some of them results in rhotacization.

The only thing I can think of is Vʔ, Vh > Vʡ, Vħ > V˞ . But I don't know how plausible that is.

[Nortaneous]

How plausible would it be to have a consonant appear out of nowhere after word-final /u/?

h-excrescence in word-final position happens in some Austronesian languages, doesn't it? Also Aslian, but there it's to fill out the word template for the reduplicative morphology. English has /ej ij/ [ɛjç ɪjç], but those are diphthongs so it's just (partial) sonorant devoicing... then again, doesn't ç-excrescence also happen in French, after the monophthongs /e i/?

[Frislander]

I think it was on the ZBB that I remember someone mentioning an attestation of u i > uk ic / _#.

I think that's a Tibeto-Burman change, and I think it may even have occurred multiple times in that family.

[Das Public Viewing]

From syllable final /Vs Vh Vw Vj Vʔ Vn Vns Vnʔ Vwʔ Vjʔ/, how can I get rhotacized vowel? It doesn't have to affect all of them, as long as some of them results in rhotacization.

The only thing I can think of is Vʔ, Vh > Vʡ, Vħ > V˞ . But I don't know how plausible that is.

Wasn't there some language with /n/>>/r/, or am I misremembering that? If so, could that perhaps yield a rhotic vowel?

Also, a question of my own: how likely is VC>>VCV/_$? For VC$C, where both consonants have the same MOA, how likely is it compared to just VCC>>VC?

[Zju]

From syllable final /Vs Vh Vw Vj Vʔ Vn Vns Vnʔ Vwʔ Vjʔ/, how can I get rhotacized vowel? It doesn't have to affect all of them, as long as some of them results in rhotacization.

The only thing I can think of is Vʔ, Vh > Vʡ, Vħ > V˞ . But I don't know how plausible that is.

Wasn't there some language with /n/>>/r/, or am I misremembering that? If so, could that perhaps yield a rhotic vowel?

Also, a question of my own: how likely is VC>>VCV/_$? For VC$C, where both consonants have the same MOA, how likely is it compared to just VCC>>VC?

1. That's attested multiple times, e.g. in Albanian (or a dialect thereof); PIE heteroclitics are most simply explained by the same sound change. In general, conditional n > r, n > l, r <-> l happen pretty easily, not sure about r > n, l > n though. /d/ likes to join the party, too.

2. A dialect of Finnish (Savonian?) has something similar, not for the same MOA, but for a lengthy list of consonant clusters. There were a couple of close patterns to it, but I don't remember them - maybe some of them were hC, lN? E.g. kolme > kolome three.

[Das Public Viewing]

Wow that was fast

2. A dialect of Finnish (Savonian?) has something similar, not for the same MOA, but for a lengthy list of consonant clusters. There were a couple of close patterns to it, but I don't remember them - maybe some of them were hC, lN? E.g. kolme > kolome three.

Thanks! I was actually aware of a similar change in Slavic, though: VR>>VRV/_$ (*borná>>борона [ru]). The ones I'm worried about this working on are mostly plosives and affricates; are there any examples of this with those?

In general, conditional n > r, n > l, r <-> l happen pretty easily, not sure about r > n, l > n though.

Oops. Thanks for the heads up. In the same language as the possible VC>>VCV change, there's a change where /l/>>/n/ next to a glottalized vowel (semi-common in the protolanguage). I thought his was a fairly trivial change, given rhinoglottophilia and the similarity in POA/MOA. Am I mistaken here?

[Knit Tie]

What do y'all say about the following:

ɡ → ɣ~ʁ → ʕ → ŋ

b d → w ɾ/ V_V

b d → p t Initially, finally and in clusters

l → ɾ word-finally

wu ji → wo je

s → ʃ/ _C; _#; _i

ʃ → s/ _ɨ

[mèþru]

b d → p t Initially, finally and in clusters

These conditions look odd, but the rest looks realistic. Why is it also finally and in all clusters?

[Knit Tie]

b d → p t Initially, finally and in clusters

These conditions look odd, but the rest looks realistic. Why is it also finally and in all clusters?

I'm trying to eliminate phonemic voicing from the language, and want to lenite /b/ and /d/ intervocalically and simply devoice ghem everywhere else.

[Whimemsz]

Then that's just a context-free change of [ b d] > [p t], ordered after the lenition change, so that's reasonable.

ʕ → ŋ is fairly weird, going straight from ɡ → ŋ would be more realistic than the chain you've given

[Knit Tie]

So ɣ → ŋ is possible?

Can I do ʕ → ɣ → ŋ, then?

I did think that ʕ → ŋ is plausible rhinoɡlottophilia, thouɡh.

[Pabappa]

I did think that ʕ → ŋ is plausible rhinoɡlottophilia, thouɡh.

I may be the source of this conception, though I think I already admitted to it earlier in this thread so I held back when you mentioned it a few days ago. Some words appear to have / ŋ/ for classical Hebrew / ʕ/, but it's likely it was a sound substitution rather than a proper sound change. I dont think its ever been attested as a sound change.

If you're getting this from Index Diachronica, then that's a part that I wrote, but I noted even there that it probably wasn't a true sound shift.

Unconditional ɣ → ŋ would be odd but at least the PoA is the same. I tend to be a skeptic on sound changes, though.

[Zaarin]

Unconditional ɣ → ŋ would be odd but at least the PoA is the same. I tend to be a skeptic on sound changes, though.

I can't cite a source, but I'm positive ɣ → ŋ is attested. If not, g → ŋ certainly is, so ɣ → g → ŋ would be a very plausible chain shift.

[Nortaneous]

b d → p t Initially, finally and in clusters

These conditions look odd, but the rest looks realistic. Why is it also finally and in all clusters?

I'm trying to eliminate phonemic voicing from the language, and want to lenite /b/ and /d/ intervocalically and simply devoice ghem everywhere else.

Chuvash

[mae]

-

[bbbosborne]

can /l̥/ > /ɬ/?

[Nortaneous]

can /l̥/ > /ɬ/?

Yes, they're basically the same thing in the first place

[WeepingElf]

can /l̥/ > /ɬ/?

Yes, they're basically the same thing in the first place

Technically, there is a difference between a voiceless fricative like [ɬ] and a voiceless approximant like [l̥], but voiceless approximants tend to fricativize, so bbbosborne is perfectly right with his sound change - it is not only plausible but indeed highly likely to happen.