Sound Change Quickie Thread

[Travis B.]

Any precedent for hp ht hk -> p' t' k' ?

What about ʔp ʔt ʔk -> p' t' k' ?

I could see **hp **ht **hk (> **pp **tt **kk) > *ʔp *ʔt *ʔk > p’ t’ k’. Directly from preaspiration to ejective would seem to be a stretch but if there’s a sequence in the sound changes it cound get there with a pit stop or two along the way.

Definitely agreed here.

[/ˌnɐˈɾɛndɚduːd/]

any thoughts on this sequence of sound changes?

Nm Nn Nŋ > Nb Nd Ng > ^mb ⁿd ^ŋg

V^mb Vⁿd V^ŋg > Ṽb Ṽd Ṽg

Ṽ...V > Ṽ...Ṽ

Ṽ(#) > V(n#)

[Travis B.]

any thoughts on this sequence of sound changes?

Nm Nn Nŋ > Nb Nd Ng > ^mb ⁿd ^ŋg

V^mb Vⁿd V^ŋg > Ṽb Ṽd Ṽg

Ṽ...V > Ṽ...Ṽ

Ṽ(#) > V(n#)

Nothing there seems objectionable to me.

[chelsea]

Ṽ...V > Ṽ...Ṽ

Does the ellipsis stand for any amount of arbitrary sounds (until the next vowel)? Can it cross word boundaries?

[Travis B.]

Ṽ...V > Ṽ...Ṽ

Does the ellipsis stand for any amount of arbitrary sounds (until the next vowel)? Can it cross word boundaries?

It would make sense to have phonemes such as fortis obstruents that can block nasal harmony.

[/ˌnɐˈɾɛndɚduːd/]

Does the ellipsis stand for any amount of arbitrary sounds (until the next vowel)?

yep.

Can it cross word boundaries?

not in most circumstances, I don't think.

[bradrn]

Can it cross word boundaries?

not in most circumstances, I don't think.

Next question: under what circumstances can it? And how does your language define words anyway, if it even does?

(Sorry…)

[/ˌnɐˈɾɛndɚduːd/]

under what circumstances can it?

I meant, like, as an general rule, the use of ellipsis in sound change notation doesn't cross word boundaries.

[Travis B.]

under what circumstances can it?

I meant, like, as an general rule, the use of ellipsis in sound change notation doesn't cross word boundaries.

The thing is that the notion of a "word" is a surprisingly fuzzy concept. For instance, what about clitics?

[Travis B.]

And again, I must emphasize that very many languages with some sort of nasality harmony have some conditions beyond word boundaries in which it is blocked (e.g. voiced consonants are typically more likely to be transparent to voicing than voiceless consonants).

[Qwynegold]

Remember that in many languages voiced nasals and voiced plosives are closely related. If you want to more strongly justify the changes you detailed, I would do something like have an intermediate state of m̥, n̥, ŋ̊ > m̥p, n̥t, ŋ̊k and potentially transfer the nasalization to the preceding vowel (my native dialect of English has a productive sound change where coda mp, nt, ŋk > ʔp, ʔ(t), ʔk (and also when followed by a sibilant in the same coda) with nasalization of the preceding vowel, but the nasal consonant is preserved if there is a syllable boundary between it and the plosive).

Oh, alright. I think I'll keep it simpler though.

Ah, but I didn't get any reply on this:

The idea is that /h/ devoices preceding consonants, even in a preceding word. /h/ is then elided, but <h> is kept in writing. This would create consonant mutation at the end of words, when the next word is one that used to begin with /h/. If the above sound changes are plausible, then is this consonant mutation idea plausible? If it's implausible for all h- words to cause the mutation, then what about just a few really common words causing it?

Does anyone have any thoughts about this? The only thing I know about consonant mutation is from Cornish, where it's initial and caused by things like prepositions, possessive pronouns and adjectives with feminine agreement. So maybe it's unlikely that all words would cause it.

[WeepingElf]

Does anyone have any thoughts about this? The only thing I know about consonant mutation is from Cornish, where it's initial and caused by things like prepositions, possessive pronouns and adjectives with feminine agreement. So maybe it's unlikely that all words would cause it.

The Insular Celtic initial mutations are of course the results of conditioned sound changes which transgressed some word boundaries; for instance, the feminine adjectives mutated because feminine nuns once ended in a vowel (/a:/), which meant that the initial consonant of the following adjective was affected as if it was postvocalic. These changes in Brythonic were almost the same as those in western Romance languages (the Goidelic changes were somewhat different), only with less respect of word boundaries.

[WeepingElf]

Of course, nuns is just a typo for nouns Thanks for spotting it, bradrn!

[Richard W]

The idea is that /h/ devoices preceding consonants, even in a preceding word. /h/ is then elided, but <h> is kept in writing.

Does anyone have any thoughts about this? The only thing I know about consonant mutation is from Cornish, where it's initial and caused by things like prepositions, possessive pronouns and adjectives with feminine agreement. So maybe it's unlikely that all words would cause it.

I suspect it may only survive well as a grammaticalisation and in set phrases. In British English, I keep hearing a + intrusive-r instead of an. Hiatus is also common.

[Travis B.]

My own dialect of English has word-final sandhi phenomena where final /Vt Vd Vn Vrn Vnt Vnd/ undergo a variety of processes, including flapping, elision, or assimilation, based on what the next word begins with (especially, but not solely, if it is a vowel or semivowel). However, I would not call these mutation since they are not grammaticalized.

[Qwynegold]

Okay, so basically the feature I was thinking of would probably only happen in limited contexts. Which I suspected. This conland has N-Adj and prepositions, but maybe I can make something...

adjectives mutated because feminine nuns once ended in a vowel (/a:/)

My own dialect of English has word-final sandhi phenomena where final /Vt Vd Vn Vrn Vnt Vnd/ undergo a variety of processes, including flapping, elision, or assimilation, based on what the next word begins with (especially, but not solely, if it is a vowel or semivowel). However, I would not call these mutation since they are not grammaticalized.

Ah, but the environment that causes this hasn't disappeared, right?

[Travis B.]

My own dialect of English has word-final sandhi phenomena where final /Vt Vd Vn Vrn Vnt Vnd/ undergo a variety of processes, including flapping, elision, or assimilation, based on what the next word begins with (especially, but not solely, if it is a vowel or semivowel). However, I would not call these mutation since they are not grammaticalized.

Ah, but the environment that causes this hasn't disappeared, right?

Correct.

[Man in Space]

I’m reading through Thorpe’s 1983 monograph on Ryūkyūan historical linguistics, and I came across something I wanted to share right away because it was novel and useful, or so I thought:

C > Cʰ / { #, [+syll +hi] } _ [+syll +hi]

This was a productive rule he reconstructs for the progenitor of the Amami-Okinawa branch of the family.

[bradrn]

I’m reading through Thorpe’s 1983 monograph on Ryūkyūan historical linguistics, and I came across something I wanted to share right away because it was novel and useful, or so I thought:

C > Cʰ / { #, [+syll +hi] } _ [+syll +hi]

This was a productive rule he reconstructs for the progenitor of the Amami-Okinawa branch of the family.

How do I read [+syll +hi]?

[Travis B.]

I’m reading through Thorpe’s 1983 monograph on Ryūkyūan historical linguistics, and I came across something I wanted to share right away because it was novel and useful, or so I thought:

C > Cʰ / { #, [+syll +hi] } _ [+syll +hi]

This was a productive rule he reconstructs for the progenitor of the Amami-Okinawa branch of the family.

How do I read [+syll +hi]?

I assume that means either a close vowel or a high-tone vowel, but I'm not sure which.