] On 16 April 2017 at 16:02, Melroch <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> I'm tinkering with Celimine again, and thought it might be nice to get >> some feedback on the broad outlines of its diachronic phonology. >> >> The consonants in Proto-C have a palatalized / velarized distinction, >> similar to Irish or Russian (although not every consonants in the >> "palatalized" is actually phonetically palatalized, and not every >> consonant in the velarized set is actually phonetically velarized). >> >> The inventory as currently envisioned is as follows: >> >> Palatal ~ Velar >> >> Plosives: >> pʲ bʲ ~ p b >> tʲ dʲ ~ t d >> c ɟ ~ k g >> >> Nasals: >> mʲ ~ m >> ɲ ~ n >> ŋʲ ~ ŋ > > Thats a pretty tenuous distinction ɳ vs ŋʲ you have there. ? I don't have a retroflex nasal ɳ there... > I'd expect nʲ > vs. ɲ because ŋʲ pretty much is another, usually phonologically motivated, > way of writing ɲ. Well, yeah. Doesn't make a difference to the actual content, but I suppose notating the palatalized version of /n/ as nʲ does make sense given the regularity of the pairing throughout the consonant inventory. > It would be a nice touch if there was no coronal/dorsal > distinction in nasals on the palatal side though. This phonology cries out > for an assymetry. :-) Why do you say that? Just because it is exceptionally symmetrical right now? Incidentally, /nʲ/ and /ŋʲ/ are neutralized under lenition (both become just /j/), so just eliminating the distinction entirely would kinda fit. >> Fricatives: >> fʲ vʲ ~ f v >> z ~ ʂ >> >> Approximants: >> ɹʲ ~ ɹ > > ɹ ~ r/ɾ would be kind of realistic here. That seems reasonable. >> l ~ ɫ >> >> I figure at an even earlier stage, /ʂ/ developed from an unvoiced >> version of /ɹ/, and then got re-analyzed to pair up with its fellow >> sibilant /z/ instead. Or perhaps it came about as a merger of /ɹ/ and >> /z/, or something like that. > > Any particular reason it's not just s? > In fact sʲ becoming ʂ and s becoming > z seems more likely. Reverse-engineering. sʲ -> ʂ is indeed more likely, but in order to get the right distributions of [s] vs.[ʂ] allophones in the modern language, I need an excuse for ʂ to pattern with the velar consonants and trigger vowel backing. By itself, that's not implausible,as such patterning is attested in natlangs (Russian treats ʂ as a "hard", velarized consonant), but deriving it from palatalized [sʲ] would require it to group the other way! >> So, how does that look as far as plausibility for a natural phonemic inventory? > > OK, except for the unlikely z ~ ʂ pairing. Any better if I have separate zʲ ~ z & s ~ ʂ pairs? Or just replace it with s ~ ʂ? >> The sound changes that produce the modern Celimine phonemic inventory >> involve a process of displaced contrast that collapses the >> palatal/velar distinction in consonants and splits the vowels into an >> 8-vowel system with front/back harmony, and a process of intervocalic >> lenition that introduces a bunch of new fricatives and approximants, > > Shame on you for rushing over the most interesting part! ;-) Well, the main thing is just to see how the proto-phonology works on its own. What it turns into *later* is just background.... I'm still not quite clear on the exact order in which all of the sound changes need to occur (I wanted to get feedback on the proto-inventory before spending more effort on that), but if you are interested, the general trends are as follows: Vowel breaking occurs as you would expect. pʲ/bʲ -> p/b fʲ/vʲ -> f/v tʲ/dʲ collapse with t/d phonemically, but maintain a phonetic distinction that ends up getting generalized so that contact with different classes of vowels due to morphological processes, etc., trigger consonantal allophony independent of the historical palatal vs. non-palatal status of a synchronic /t/ or /d/. c/ɟ do pretty much the same thing with k/g Nasals: mʲ ~ m ɲ ~ n ŋʲ ~ ŋ Fricatives: z ~ ʂ Approximants: ɹʲ ~ ɹ l ~ ɫ Intervocalic lenition (for which purposes r and l also count as vowels) turns: tʲ, dʲ, z, & ʂ into t/d into θ/ð (so there is a modern alternation between θ/ð and h) p/b into f/v (both palatal and non-palatal varieties) k/g into x/ɣ m into w (both palatal and non-palatal varieties) nʲ/ŋʲ int j Simplification of geminates then restores single intervocalic stops to the inventory (either the modern language still has some geminates, or harmony-resolution rules need to come into play, depending on whether this occurs before or after vowel breaking). >> resulting in these modern inventories: >> >> Vowels: >> /i/ /u/ >> /ɪ/ /ʊ/ >> /e/ /o/ >> /ɛ/ /ɑ/ > > I'd expect [æ] [ɑ]. Pretty crowded in front otherwise. True. I'll have think about that. [æ] is such an Englishy vowel, though.... >> Stops: >> p b >> t d >> k g > > I'd expect at lest some coronal affricates given all those ancestral > palatalized stops. There is French -- and Swedish and Norwegian! -- for > ANADEW though. Oh, don't worry- as presaged above, you get those as allophones! /t/ and /d/ realize as /t͡ʃ/ and /d͡ʒ/ next to front vowels, precisely because those front vowels were created by the presence of ancestral palatal stops. Most of the phonetic palatal/velar consonant pairs collapse during the vowel-splitting process, but not all of them. >> Nasals: >> m >> n >> ŋ >> >> Fricatives: >> f v >> θ ð >> s z >> x ɣ >> h >> >> Approximants: >> w >> j >> r >> l > > What happened to ɲ? Merged with j? Merged with /n/, except where it turned into /j/. -l.