Zompist Bboard Again

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Oct 20, 2025 4:56 pm

Man in Space wrote: ↑Mon Oct 20, 2025 2:23 pm If they’re postvocalic, I could see preglottal spirantization in that environment.

If that were the case I would expect clusters of {p t k}{p t k ʔ} in general to become {ɸ θ x}{p t k ʔ} after vowels.

Would it change anything to constrain it to tautosyllabic environs (i.e. when V_ʔ%)? Of course it could easily go the route of the velar nasal in English (singing) where the appearance of the glottal stop gets kind of internalized due to associatIon with certain morphemes…

Man in Space wrote: ↑Mon Oct 20, 2025 5:34 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Oct 20, 2025 4:56 pm

Man in Space wrote: ↑Mon Oct 20, 2025 2:23 pm If they’re postvocalic, I could see preglottal spirantization in that environment.

If that were the case I would expect clusters of {p t k}{p t k ʔ} in general to become {ɸ θ x}{p t k ʔ} after vowels.

Would it change anything to constrain it to tautosyllabic environs (i.e. when V_ʔ%)?

It would have a different effect if the original ejective was intervocalic and the resulting voiceless plosive and glottal stop fell in different syllables based on the language's syllabification rules.

It looks like I didn’t finish the edit before you posted. My apologies.

Man in Space wrote: ↑Mon Oct 20, 2025 5:49 pm It looks like I didn’t finish the edit before you posted. My apologies.

This particular case involving ejectives would not be impacted if the rule was limited to tautosyllabic positions if syllabification rules grouped glottal stops resulting from ejectives to the preceding syllables even when followed by a vowel.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Oct 20, 2025 5:55 pm

Man in Space wrote: ↑Mon Oct 20, 2025 5:49 pm It looks like I didn’t finish the edit before you posted. My apologies.

This particular case involving ejectives would not be impacted if the rule was limited to tautosyllabic positions if syllabification rules grouped glottal stops resulting from ejectives to the preceding syllables even when followed by a vowel.

Thank you, that got it to click.

One thing this reminds me of, though, is the application of syllabification rules to /mp/ (and other clusters which have synchronically become /mp/ like /ndp/ in grandpa), /nt/, and /ŋk/ (and /nk/ across morpheme boundaries as in pancake) in the dialect here. When both consonants fall in the same syllable, the nasal consonant is elided, leaving a preceding strongly nasalized vowel. But if a vowel follows the plosive, the nasal consonant surfaces, and while the preceding vowel is nasalized, it is less strongly nasalized than if the nasal consonant were elided. This applies productively to when suffixing takes place; e.g. nasal elision occurs in bank but not in banking or banker or in a nonsense word I just made up right now, gomp, which would be [ɡ̥ã̃ʔp]*, but gompy would be [ˈɡ̥ãm.pi(ː)].

* The double-tilde is to emphasize the stronger nasalization here; I normally don't transcribe things this way.

Some exercises. Note i would be loathe to do this as a newbie conlanger. It helps to think outside the box when it comes to conlanging and prevent your language from just gaining extra rhymes/reducing to nothing/creating more "complex" words out of simple ones.
ma pa ta ka > mja ja ta kja
mo po to ko > ma a to ko
maʔ paʔ taʔ kaʔ > mɔ ɔ tɔ ka
moʔ poʔ toʔ koʔ > mo o tʊ kʊ
You could resolve the distribution through borrowing or keep it as middle chinese does.

I was having a look at the abbreviations used in the Index Diachronica. I always assumed "$" meant a syllable boundary, but no, it's only a syllable boundary in "KneeQuickie" notation. In the diachronica "$" is a stem boundary, and "%" is a syllable boundary. I am somewhat confused why "." isn't used as for syllable boundaries... Lexurgy uses ".". Is it so that when talking about a sound change it isn't confused for a full stop... A.K.A. in American English a "period"?

Neonnaut wrote: ↑Mon Nov 10, 2025 12:36 am I always assumed "$" meant a syllable boundary, but no, it's only a syllable boundary in "KneeQuickie" notation.

Fun fact: KneeQuickie of course was a play with syllable and morpheme boundaries.

How plausible is it for overlong vowels to become diphthongs or "normal" long vowels while remaining distinct from historical (not over-)long vowels?

Specifically I am imagining something like this:

/a:/ > /o:/
/a::/ > /o:a~owa/
/e:/ > /je/
/e::/ > /ɛ:/
/i:/ > /i:/
/i::/ > /i:a~ija/
/o:/ > /wo/
/o::/ > /wo:/ or /wa:/
/u:/ > /y:/
/u::/ > /ɥo:/

It's not implausible which is all that really matters when it comes to sound change.

äreo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 10, 2025 11:25 pm How plausible is it for overlong vowels to become diphthongs or "normal" long vowels while remaining distinct from historical (not over-)long vowels?

Specifically I am imagining something like this:

/a:/ > /o:/
/a::/ > /o:a~owa/
/e:/ > /je/
/e::/ > /ɛ:/
/i:/ > /i:/
/i::/ > /i:a~ija/
/o:/ > /wo/
/o::/ > /wo:/ or /wa:/
/u:/ > /y:/
/u::/ > /ɥo:/

I'd say that something like this is certainly quite plausible, and it's not just that you can make a sound change like this that makes it that way, but that it's also quite phonetically motivated, unlike what a certain someone might tell you. (*ahem*).

äreo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 10, 2025 11:25 pm How plausible is it for overlong vowels to become diphthongs or "normal" long vowels while remaining distinct from historical (not over-)long vowels?

Specifically I am imagining something like this:

/a:/ > /o:/
/a::/ > /o:a~owa/
/e:/ > /je/
/e::/ > /ɛ:/
/i:/ > /i:/
/i::/ > /i:a~ija/
/o:/ > /wo/
/o::/ > /wo:/ or /wa:/
/u:/ > /y:/
/u::/ > /ɥo:/

IIRC, a very common pattern is for (especially unstressed) long vowels to become short vowels and overlong vowels to become long vowels, while short vowels are simultaneously elided or reduced.

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Mon Nov 10, 2025 6:10 am

Neonnaut wrote: ↑Mon Nov 10, 2025 12:36 am I always assumed "$" meant a syllable boundary, but no, it's only a syllable boundary in "KneeQuickie" notation.

Fun fact: KneeQuickie of course was a play with syllable and morpheme boundaries.

More: show

That wiki was run by a former ZBB member who went by the name Neek, hence NeekWiki.

It's a shame it wasn't archived properly, although apparently there was not much on that site...?

Oh, also on that note, on further research, "$" is used as a syllable boundary quite often.

Neonnaut wrote: ↑Sat Dec 20, 2025 10:55 am

WeepingElf wrote: ↑Mon Nov 10, 2025 6:10 am

Neonnaut wrote: ↑Mon Nov 10, 2025 12:36 am I always assumed "$" meant a syllable boundary, but no, it's only a syllable boundary in "KneeQuickie" notation.

Fun fact: KneeQuickie of course was a play with syllable and morpheme boundaries.

More: show

That wiki was run by a former ZBB member who went by the name Neek, hence NeekWiki.

It's a shame it wasn't archived properly, although apparently there was not much on that site...?

Oh, also on that note, on further research, "$" is used as a syllable boundary quite often.

The sound change library is incorporated into the Index Diachronica¹.

1. Yes, yes, it has its flaws, some egregious, I am aware.

how's this look? I want an excuse for some silly orthographic historical spelling.

l > ʟ / _{u, o}
ʟ > w / _
w > u / C_C<sup>1

1</sup> with some unrelated sound changes, the [l] which was previously adjacent to those back vowels has a chance to be in the middle of a cluster.

/ˌnɐ.ˈɾɛn.dɚ.ˌduːd/ wrote: ↑Wed Jan 07, 2026 5:22 pm how's this look? I want an excuse for some silly orthographic historical spelling.

l > ʟ / _{u, o}
ʟ > w / _
w > u / C_C<sup>1

1</sup> with some unrelated sound changes, the [l] which was previously adjacent to those back vowels has a chance to be in the middle of a cluster.

Looks like my English!

bottle [ˈpɔtˢʷu ~ ˈpɔɾʷu]
tackle [ˈtˢækʷʰu]
etc. etc.

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Jan 07, 2026 5:26 pm

/ˌnɐ.ˈɾɛn.dɚ.ˌduːd/ wrote: ↑Wed Jan 07, 2026 5:22 pm how's this look? I want an excuse for some silly orthographic historical spelling.

l > ʟ / _{u, o}
ʟ > w / _
w > u / C_C<sup>1

1</sup> with some unrelated sound changes, the [l] which was previously adjacent to those back vowels has a chance to be in the middle of a cluster.

Looks like my English!

bottle [ˈpɔtˢʷu ~ ˈpɔɾʷu]
tackle [ˈtˢækʷʰu]
etc. etc.

As I've discussed here before, my /l/ has a "strong" (careful, stressed, initial, geminate) form of [ʟ̞], a "weak" onset form of [ɰ]~[w], and vocalized forms of [ɯ̞]~[ʊ] and [ɤ]~[o] (depending on surrounding phones). By default it is unrounded, but it will acquire rounding from adjacent phonemes (but is often more weakly rounded than them). It negates the fronting of preceding back vowels, hence tool [tʷʰu(ː)ʊ̯] even though two [tsʲʷʰy(ː)].

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Jan 08, 2026 5:00 pm

bradrn wrote: ↑Wed Jan 07, 2026 5:26 pm

/ˌnɐ.ˈɾɛn.dɚ.ˌduːd/ wrote: ↑Wed Jan 07, 2026 5:22 pm how's this look? I want an excuse for some silly orthographic historical spelling.

l > ʟ / _{u, o}
ʟ > w / _
w > u / C_C<sup>1

1</sup> with some unrelated sound changes, the [l] which was previously adjacent to those back vowels has a chance to be in the middle of a cluster.

Looks like my English!

bottle [ˈpɔtˢʷu ~ ˈpɔɾʷu]
tackle [ˈtˢækʷʰu]
etc. etc.

As I've discussed here before, my /l/ has a "strong" (careful, stressed, initial, geminate) form of [ʟ̞], a "weak" onset form of [ɰ]~[w], and vocalized forms of [ɯ̞]~[ʊ] and [ɤ]~[o] (depending on surrounding phones). By default it is unrounded, but it will acquire rounding from adjacent phonemes (but is often more weakly rounded than them). It negates the fronting of preceding back vowels, hence tool [tʷʰu(ː)ʊ̯] even though two [tsʲʷʰy(ː)].

Pretty similar for me too.

I have a conlang that merges tautosyllabic /pl tl kl/ into /t͡ɬ/. Is it plausible for tautosyllabic /tl/ to thereafter be reintroduced via borrowing and maintain a stable contrast with /t͡ɬ/?