I’ve actually seen evidence of a dialect of a language (I can’t recall exactly but ISTR it was Sinitic) that had *s > ɬ as a result of a push chain; since we’re only seeing one element of the shift, I’d say it’s reasonable.
There is also the ts-to-lateral-via-theta conceit.
I’ve actually seen evidence of a dialect of a language (I can’t recall exactly but ISTR it was Sinitic) that had *s > ɬ as a result of a push chain; since we’re only seeing one element of the shift, I’d say it’s reasonable.
There is also the ts-to-lateral-via-theta conceit.
I am more familiar with *ɬ > sibilants myself; e.g. this happened more than once in Semitic.
Unmotivated /s/ → /ɬ/ is attested multiple times, although areally not that widespread; Yue Chinese, some Central Tai languages, Hlai, Tanoan apparently. In SE Asia /s/ isn't as stable as it ought to be, it keeps turning into /t/ or /ɬ/ or some bullshit along those lines.
edit: MiS's push chain would be Yue Chinese -
*t tʰ → ʔ h
*ts tsʰ s → t tʰ ɬ
*tɕ tɕʰ tɕ → ts tsʰ s
Darren wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 6:38 am
Unmotivated /s/ → /ɬ/ is attested multiple times, although areally not that widespread; Yue Chinese, some Central Tai languages, Hlai, Tanoan apparently. In SE Asia /s/ isn't as stable as it ought to be, it keeps turning into /t/ or /ɬ/ or some bullshit along those lines.
edit: MiS's push chain would be Yue Chinese -
*t tʰ → ʔ h
*ts tsʰ s → t tʰ ɬ
*tɕ tɕʰ tɕ → ts tsʰ s
I was always thinking we were meant to stay within the bounds of what could happen in a single shift or chain shift (i.e. disaffrication, replicating Grimm's Law or the Great Vowel Shift), where [ts] > [ɬ] feels like it's compounding two things, both lateralisation ([ts] > [tɬ]) and then disaffrication ([tɬ] > [ɬ]), which probably ought to be separate posts in the game. As long as a sound change is attested and it feels plausible in context, though, I think it ought to be fine, and there isn't cause to call it "evil" (though it might be ugly).