Print

Print


Hallo conlangers!

On Saturday 09 February 2013 22:47:16 BPJ wrote:

> On 2013-02-09 20:20, Herman Miller wrote:
> [...]
> > It's Tirelat that has /ts/ /dz/ as phonemes. But maybe some Jarda
> > words with /s/ followed by a front vowel like "sül" (married
> > couple) might have come from an original *t that was palatalized.
> > 
> > *tilu > *tsilu > *tsülu > *tsül > sül

That makes sense.  /t/ becomes /ts/ before /i/ in many languages,
and /ts/ > /s/ is also a very common sound change.

> [...]
> >> Maybe */cl/ > /śl/ etc. or else /cl/ etc. merge with
> >> /tl/ etc. if these exist; cf. English where /tr/, /dr/
> >> are often [tʃɹ], [dʒɹ] or even [ʈʂ], [ɖʐ].

Yes, it happened in some dialects of English.  /tr/ > /ʈʂ/ also
happened in one of my conlangs - the Northern Neck dialect of
Old Albic.  (The closely allied Southern Neck dialect has /tr̥/.)

> >>    Chances are
> >> likely that /c/, /ɟ/ are actually alveopalatal, i.e.
> >> what Sino-Tibetanists would write as ȶ ȡ! AFMOC
> >> Sohlob has /ȶɕ/, /ȡʑ/~[ʑ], /ɕ/ and {/ɕt/, /ȶɕt/, /sȶɕ/},
> >> {/ȡʑd/, /zȡʑ/} are realized as [ɕȶ], [ʑȡ], which I
> >> transcribe _çt, jd_ -- you will remember that I have
> >> qualms about word-initial _jd_ in Cidilib. The area
> >> where Cidilib is spoken is [dɮɒˈfiɕȶir] 'Içtir Mountains'
> >> BTW, where /dlof/ is the reflex of _*gryafu_.

Nice!  In Northern Neck Old Albic, /tɕ/ is cognate to Southern
Neck /tɬ/ (< Proto-Albic */tl/ and */kl/, both preserved in
Classical Old Albic).
 
> > /tl/ does exist ("tlug" = "neck"); the Zharranh word for "neck" is
> > "qolka" with initial /kw/, so it would be interesting if these are
> > somehow related. I think maybe the *kl /_i > *cl > /śl/ might work
> > out better though.

Fair.  Maybe first the lateral was palatalized, which caused the
/k/ to palatalize, and then the contrast between alveolar and
palatal lateral was lost.  Or whatever.  You are much more
knowledgeable than me in this regards, it seems.

> [...]
> >> Intervocalic [ʈ]ˌ [ɖ] easily become [ɽ], whence I guess [ɻ] is
> >> a small step.

Yep.

> [loss of retroflexes]
> 
> Another possibility is that retreflexes merged with
> (alveo)palatals.  They are quite similar acoustically.

Yes.  Many languages have only one kind of postalveolars, and
when such a substratum is involved, /ɕ/ and /ʂ/ may merge into
/ʃ/ etc. (of course, it may also happen without a substratum,
too).
 
> [...]
> >> The spontaneous voicing of [ʍ] seems OK but [ç] > [j]
> >> somehow rubs me the wrong way. I'd rather expect
> >> [ç] > [h], at least word initially. I'm clearly
> >> influenced by Sohlob here, though!
> >> 
> >> /bpj
> > 
> > Here the problem is that we don't have a good way to write a
> > voiceless /j/ without making it look like the German "ich" sound.
> > I'm thinking of the same kind of change that happened in many
> > dialects of English when the "wh" sound was merged with /w/. Carl
> > Sagan's pronunciation of "human" as /jumən/ is an example of that
> > change.
> 
> <foreheadslap>

Indeed, /ç/ > /j/ certainly is possible, especially if /ʍ/ becomes
/w/ in the same language.

In some dialects of German, /ç/ has become /ʃ/: "In der Palz geht
der Parrer mit der Peife in die Kirsche".  (Helmut Kohl's famous
_Gechichte_ is a hypercorrection: in his native Pfälzer dialect,
the word is _Geschischte_.)

> > I could just arbitrarily write /J/ I guess. ɪ could write /j̥/, but
> > the ring under the j might not be apparent depending on your font.
> 
> Tolkien used ƕ and ꜧ for labiovelar and palatal voiceless
> approximants.
> I have used ƕ for the coarticulated [x] and voiceless bilabial
> approximant which occurs for /x/ hereabouts.

What sound is _ƕ_ in Gothic?  /ʍ/?

--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
"Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1