Page 68 of 72
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2024 12:12 pm
by 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...
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2024 12:29 pm
by Travis B.
spindlestar wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 4:03 pm
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 ?
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2024 4:43 pm
by 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
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2024 5:08 pm
by WeepingElf
Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2024 12:29 pm
spindlestar wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 4:03 pm
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.
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2024 6:18 pm
by ophois
Nortaneous wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2024 4:43 pm
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).
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2024 6:34 pm
by Travis B.
Nortaneous wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2024 4:43 pm
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.
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2024 8:29 pm
by bradrn
Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2024 6:34 pm
Nortaneous wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2024 4:43 pm
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.
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2024 7:13 pm
by 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/
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2024 12:14 pm
by 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.
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2024 2:24 pm
by Emily
most obvious routes to me are lenited /ɣ/ or delabialized /w/
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2024 2:42 pm
by Zju
Raholeun wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 12:14 pm
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/
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2024 5:14 pm
by Travis B.
Raholeun wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 12:14 pm
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.
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2024 5:44 pm
by Man in Space
Basically an unrounded take on the case of Polish graphemic ł?
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2024 2:25 pm
by fusijui
Raholeun wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 12:14 pm
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!
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2024 4:04 pm
by Darren
k → ɰ by lenition is far from exotic – it happened in Spanish.
/ˈfokus/ → [ˈfu̯eɰo]
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2024 10:26 pm
by Travis B.
Man in Space wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 5:44 pm
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.
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2024 10:28 pm
by Travis B.
Darren wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 4:04 pm
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.
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2024 10:29 pm
by bradrn
Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 10:26 pm
Man in Space wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 5:44 pm
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.
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2024 10:39 pm
by Travis B.
bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 10:29 pm
Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 10:26 pm
Man in Space wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 5:44 pm
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.
Re: Sound Change Quickie Thread
Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2024 10:45 pm
by Darren
Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 10:39 pm
bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 10:29 pm
Travis B. wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 10:26 pm
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.