Sound Change Quickie Thread

[Richard W]

I don't know of any language that works like that, but then I don't claim to know about the morphophonology of many languages. Early Middle English and the Late Latin ancestor of Gallo/Italo-Romance and Dalmatian forbid CVCV with a short V1, but they force the V1 to lengthen (> CV:CV), e.g. OE duru [ˈduru] > ME dore [ˈdo:rə] 'door', Anglian OE wicu [ˈwiku] > ME weke [ˈwe:kə] 'week', Old Latin fidem [ˈfidem] > Late Latin [ˈfeːde] > early Old French feid [feiθ], Dalmatian [faid] 'faith'.

Not so uniformly. OE sunu has kept the first short vowel (Mod. E. son), and OE also had dor 'door'.

[Kuchigakatai]

Not so uniformly. OE sunu has kept the first short vowel (Mod. E. son), and OE also had dor 'door'.

Right. It is possible to detect exceptions like that in Late Latin too, e.g. malē 'bad' > Old French mal (instead of expected > *[ˈma:le] > *mel, cf. mare 'sea' > *[ˈma:re] > *[ˈme:re] > mer).

[Ahzoh]

How could I phonetically reduce these nominative pronouns below so that they become possessive suffixes?

Code: Select all

Nominative:
   Singular | Plural
1: t̪em      | mem
2: xam      | dʒam

They would occur either after the gender endings or before them, I haven't decided:

Code: Select all

maʃg-o "land"    > maʃg-V-t̪em-o  OR maʃg-o-t̪em
gol-e "horse"    > gol-V-dʒam-e  OR gol-e-dʒam
lʲan̪-ei̯ "person" > lʲan̪-V-mem-ei̯ OR lʲan̪-ei̯-mem

[Kuchigakatai]

I'd suggest putting them after in terms of naturalness, because the gender suffixes are an integral lexical part of the noun, and that's just what languages tend to do. Derivational suffixes can often go in between though, as in Arabic /ʕarab-iːj-at-un/ arab-ADJ-FEM-NOM 'Arab woman', or Spanish grande-cit-o big-DIM-MASC.SG 'cute big male person/thing'. (Of course, you're free to do whatever you want regardless of how normal it is in natlangs.)

I'm not sure what your question is about, really... just take phonemes out or pronounce them "lazily" (lenited)? Say, maʃg-o-tem > maʃgot, or maʃgo(ð)i, or maʃgotsə, etc. (along with maʃg-o-mem > maʃgom, or maʃgõĩ, or maʃgomə, etc.).

[TurkeySloth]

What are some vowel systems that can emerge from a co-mingling of my setting's Elvish and Primordial languages (vowel systems below), aside from a direct combination?

Elvish: (oral) /ɑ ɐ e ɪ o ɯ/; (nasal) /ɑ̃ ɛ̃ ɔ̃ ɯ̃̽/
Primordial: /ɑ e̞ i o̞ ʊ/ with [Kɑ → Pa] and [CV → NṼ], where K is a click, P is a non-nasal pulmonic, C is a non-nasal consonant, N is [m ʇ̃ ʖ̃ ʗ̃], and V is any vowel

[Ahzoh]

I'd suggest putting them after in terms of naturalness, because the gender suffixes are an integral lexical part of the noun, and that's just what languages tend to do. Derivational suffixes can often go in between though, as in Arabic /ʕarab-iːj-at-un/ arab-ADJ-FEM-NOM 'Arab woman', or Spanish grande-cit-o big-DIM-MASC.SG 'cute big male person/thing'. (Of course, you're free to do whatever you want regardless of how normal it is in natlangs.)

I'm not sure what your question is about, really... just take phonemes out or pronounce them "lazily" (lenited)? Say, maʃg-o-tem > maʃgot, or maʃgo(ð)i, or maʃgotsə, etc. (along with maʃg-o-mem > maʃgom, or maʃgõĩ, or maʃgomə, etc.).

I don't do diachronics very well so I don't know all the interesting changes morphemes could undergo. I kinda wanted them to not simply be the first consonant of the original pronoun. Simply maʃgot, maʃgom, maʃgox, maʃgodʒ is boring.

Also the gender ending is tied with case and when compounding the gender endings are dropped.

Problems are also run into when dealing with all the cases:

Code: Select all

масьг-о-тем "my house"   / масьг-о-мем "our house"
масьг-ом-тем "my house"  / масьг-ом-мем "our house"
масьг-ась-тем "my house" / масьг-ась-мем "our house"
масьг-ук-тем "my house"  / масьг-ук-мем "our house"

масьг-о-хам "your house"   / масьг-о-ѕьам "your house"
масьг-ом-хам "your house"  / масьг-ом-ѕьам "your house"
масьг-ась-хам "your house" / масьг-ась-ѕьам "your house"
масьг-ук-хам "your house"  / масьг-ук-ѕьам "your house"

масьг-о-лаі "his house"   / масьг-о-каі "their house"
масьг-ом-лаі "his house"  / масьг-ом-каі "their house"
масьг-ась-лаі "his house" / масьг-ась-каі "their house"
масьг-ук-лаі "his house"  / масьг-ук-каі "their house"

Code: Select all

гол-е-тем "my horse"   / гол-е-мем "our horse"
гол-ем-тем "my horse"  / гол-ем-мем "our horse"
гол-ась-тем "my horse" / гол-ась-мем "our horse"
гол-ик-тем "my horse"  / гол-ик-мем "our horse"

гол-е-хам "your horse"   / гол-е-ѕьам "your horse"
гол-ем-хам "your horse"  / гол-ем-ѕьам "your horse"
гол-ась-хам "your horse" / гол-ась-ѕьам "your horse"
гол-ик-хам "your horse"  / гол-ик-ѕьам "your horse"

гол-е-лаі "his horse"   / гол-е-каі "their horse"
гол-ем-лаі "his horse"  / гол-ем-каі "their horse"
гол-ась-лаі "his horse" / гол-ась-каі "their horse"
гол-ик-лаі "his horse"  / гол-ик-каі "their horse"

I guess I’ll just give up on possessive affixes since nothing I can think of can match the criteria of a) being distinct from the nominative pronoun forms and the ergative person prefixes and b) can be phonetically/euphonically compatible with all the case forms.

[Pabappa]

i would think that the possessive affixes would more likely arise from the genitives, but i guess it depends on the history of your language .... i defied my own advice with Poswa , but Pabappa, which is more like an SAE language, derives its possessives from genitives. Anyway, some random ideas maybe if you decide to stick with it:

Are the suffixes always unstressed? how about
1) loss of unstressed final /m/,
2) final unstressed /e/ > /i/,
3) sporadic /m/ > /Ø/ when overlaying two unaccented syllables (or /x/, or pick another one),
4) voicing of all voiceless consonants when overlaying two unaccented syllables.

These changes could end you up with something like /-ḍi -i -ɣa -dža/ or perhaps /-ḍi -mi -a -dža/ instead of /ṭem mem xam džam/.

These would apply to all words, not just the inflections, but analogical restoration could take effect since roots would be commonly padded by the suffixes.

As for your other post, I dont understand why you have four versions of each word. Are you fusing the case markers with the gender affixes from the first post?

[karaluuebru]

through morphological processes, a word /wjous/ has been produced - what could the sounds become?

/bjous/?
/jwous/>/gwous/?
/wous/?

[Pabappa]

In my languages I usually just shift /wj/ to /j/, even though I otherwise favor labial consonants. I do have one language where I shifted it to /w/ under some conditions, but only because /j/ was disappearing in those environments even without the /w/. Especially seeing as the following vowel is already rounded, I would bet on the /j/ being the dominating influence if you're looking to end up with a single consonant. But, if this is a sound change that is only going to take place in just this one word, you can pretty much pick any of the options you've come up with and go with it, though the /jw/ > /gw/ shift looks less likely than the others.

[Zju]

I'd go for one of /wujous/ /ujous/ /wijous/ /wəjous/ (or for any default/neutral vowel that there is in the lang).

[Pabappa]

Oh, also, /v/ as in Slavic.... Though it'd be a lot more likely to end up as /v/ if that is already a reasonably common sound to begin with.

[Ahzoh]

As for your other post, I dont understand why you have four versions of each word. Are you fusing the case markers with the gender affixes from the first post?

Those four versions are all the cases, Absolutive, Ergative, Dative, and Prepositional. There are no genitive forms.

[Nortaneous]

through morphological processes, a word /wjous/ has been produced - what could the sounds become?

/bjous/?
/jwous/>/gwous/?
/wous/?

initial /wj/ clusters are fine; however, it's crosslinguistically common for w to fricate or labiodentalize before front vowels, so you could have βj- ʋj- vj- (probably also with w > the corresponding sound before front vowels, but maybe not, cf. the Irish slender-broad pair vʲ w)

[Knit Tie]

In order to simplify the clusters in my lang, I've decided to do some tonogenesis, which I think is justified by it being surrounded by many tonal African languages and being adopted by speakers of said languages a lot.

So with regards to that, would you say that
Vɻ → Vh → V(low tone), but CɻV → ChV → CV (high tone)
is realistic? The same will apply to the /h/ produced from /s/ debuccalisation in clusters.

[dɮ the phoneme]

So with regards to that, would you say that
Vɻ → Vh → V(low tone), but CɻV → ChV → CV (high tone)
is realistic? The same will apply to the /h/ produced from /s/ debuccalisation in clusters.

For the first change, it kinda depends on what you mean. Assuming that it's only meant to occur when [ɻ] (or [s]) is in coda position, then it's totally realistic and I wouldn't give it a second thought. Otherwise I'm more skeptical. Typically when tone emerges from consonant loss, it's loss of coda consonants specifically. Intervocalic [ɻ] dropping and yielding tone would be unexpected to me, but... it may be attested somewhere. It doesn't sound impossible (maybe via rhotacization?) but I'd be skeptical.

As for the second change, I'd probably buy it. If high tone is simply the default tone and you just have ɻ s > h > ∅ /C_ then you're definitely good. If you actually want loss of [h] in this position to generate the high tone, then you could turn [h] into aspiration/breathy voice on the preceding consonant, and then have that disappear and induce tone on the following vowel (cf. Punjabi). I don't imagine ɻ > h would happen as a single step in this position, but it could probably work via [ʂ] or [x].

[Knit Tie]

Yeah, the first sound change is only meant to occur when /ɻ/ is in coda position, intervocalic /ɻ/ will simply fortify to /ʐ/ and stay that way.

As for the second one, /ɻ/ → /ʐ/;/ʂ/ after consonants is something that I'm already doing, which will create a new retroflex series out of the existing coronals and then debuccalise everywhere else, i.e. /tɻa/ → /ʈ͡ʂa/, but /kɻa/ → /kʂa/ → /kha/ → /kʰa/ → /kà/. How's that?

[dɮ the phoneme]

Yeah, the first sound change is only meant to occur when /ɻ/ is in coda position, intervocalic /ɻ/ will simply fortify to /ʐ/ and stay that way.

As for the second one, /ɻ/ → /ʐ/;/ʂ/ after consonants is something that I'm already doing, which will create a new retroflex series out of the existing coronals and then debuccalise everywhere else, i.e. /tɻa/ → /ʈ͡ʂa/, but /kɻa/ → /kʂa/ → /kha/ → /kʰa/ → /kà/. How's that?

Looks very plausible to me, though I'd expect aspiration to yield high tone more readily than low tone (as in your previous post).

[Knit Tie]

Yeah, the first sound change is only meant to occur when /ɻ/ is in coda position, intervocalic /ɻ/ will simply fortify to /ʐ/ and stay that way.

As for the second one, /ɻ/ → /ʐ/;/ʂ/ after consonants is something that I'm already doing, which will create a new retroflex series out of the existing coronals and then debuccalise everywhere else, i.e. /tɻa/ → /ʈ͡ʂa/, but /kɻa/ → /kʂa/ → /kha/ → /kʰa/ → /kà/. How's that?

Looks very plausible to me, though I'd expect aspiration to yield high tone more readily than low tone (as in your previous post).

Yeah, I just used the wrong top accent there.

[foxcatdog]

What are some ways *r and *l can arise in a language that doesn't initially have them?

[Darren]

What are some ways *r and *l can arise in a language that doesn't initially have them?

Lenition of /t d/ between vowels, rhotacising -s- between vowels, /n/ being denasalised, non-sibilant fricatives like /ð/.

ie.
t → l,r /V_V
d → l,r /V_V
s → r /V_V
n → l
θ,ð,ɬ → l