Re: Some Sound Changes

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:05:35 +0200, John Vertical
<johnvertical@...> wrote:

>> >>  1. i, u > j, w / __ V     i, u > j, w / V __
>> >
>> >This seems a bit ambiguous wrt. /iu ui/. If the first rule takes
>>precedence
>> >(so > /ju wi/) I'd think it were better to include the two rules as
>>separate
>> >ones. You might also want to specify the 1st as applying right-to-left to
>> >avoid eg. /uiu/ > /wju/.
>>
>>I'll try those.
>
>It occured to me that you have /iw/ > /ju/ a bit later anyway; in this
>light, the easiest choice would be to have i > j / __V__ first, and u > w /
>__V__ 2nd. That would handle /Viu uiV/ too, tho not /Vui/ /iuV/. But 3V
>clusters probably aren't all that common anyway - possibly not even extant?
I've added a rule 0: i, u > j, w / V __ V
and split 1 into 2 rules.

>> >>  3. V > Vj / __ Cj
>> >>     V > Vw / __ C_w
>> >>  5. ij, ej, aj, oj, uj > i, e, æ, ø, y
>> >>     iw, ew, aw, ow, uw > ju, jo, Au, o, u
>> >
>> >This looks a bit like it would be better analyzed as umlaut, tho /Vj Vw/
>> >coming from /Vi Vu/ would complicate that. Also, if the /j/ duplicates
>> >across all consonants, why doesn't /w/ duplicate across non-velars too?
>>
>>I don't know how to write the rules for umlaut, so I did it in two parts,
>>and also wanted to handle diphthongs. Good question about /w/, although I
>>don't have an answer. I'll take a look and see what happens if I change
>>that.
>
>If all difthongs come from former bisyllabic V + (u i), the most concise
>representation I can think of is:
>1. a o u > æ ø y / __CiV, __iC
>    i e a > ju jo Au / __CuV, __uC
>2. i u > j w / __V
>3.     > 0 / V__ (except /Au/)
>You could simplify the first step a bit - to "/ __(C)i/u" - if you allowed
>"regular" umlaut too, say /peku/ > /pjoku/, and disallowed any pesky /Vui
>Viu/ clusters.
>
>....no, wait, the uvulars & /r/ mess this up. Eg. /teqio/ should, along your
>original rules, become /teqjo/, but the umlaut interpretation givs /tæqjo/
>with the uvular coloring applying on top of the umlaut. Hmmmm. I can't think
>of anything better than your original epenthesis to deal with this issue.
>
>Another note, along the original rules you'd also have to specify that
>simplifications only happen with difthongs; unless you *want*, say, /niue/ >
>/niwe/ > /njue/. Pretty pedantic, yeah, but if you plan on implementing
>sound changes automatically you'll have to be.
If I add __ C to the environment, should that do it?

>> >>  7. tj, dj > ts), dz)     sj, zj > S, Z
>> >
>> >....I take /t d/ are dental but /s z/ alveolar, then?
>>
>>I don't see why /t d/ can't be alveolar at this stage.
>
>Well, because they don't palatalize to /tS dZ/ analogously to /s z/...
>dentals palatalizing to alveolar /ts dz/ directly is all fine and attested
>IIRC, but alveolars doing the same (i.e. without any POA shift), not so
>much. /th/ > /T/ also suggests the series being dental.
>
>I suppose you could invoke a direcly follo'ing /tS dZ/ > /ts dz/, maybe by
>push of /c J\ C/ > /ts\ dz\ s\/ > /tS dZ Z/, but that would seem to imply
>the /S Z/ from /sj zj/ also going back to /s z/.
You've convinced me they're dental.

>> >>10. c, J\, C > tS), dZ), S 11. hj, hw > C, x_w
>> >
>> >A new /C/ drifting in just after the old one merged into /S/? Looks a bit
>> >unlikely to me... but an easy fix would be to switch the order of palatal
>> >breikdown and aspirate spirantization (i.e: ch > tSh > S)
>>
>>I think 11 could just occur later.
>
>Especially since Alex noted that fricativization (oops, not spirantization
>if there's an /S/ there) would have to happen before affrication for /th/ to
>work out properly. Then you could also have both of your affrication steps
>occuring simultaneously.
I'll post the revised rules in my reply to Alex.

>> >dongoresu > duNgworer
>>duNgurer, I think
>
>I'm going along the vowel-breikage-before-r rule: or > oar > wAr > wor
Oops, I forgot about that!

>> >Looks like you'll get a contrast between /kw k_w/ there too... or is the
>> >labialization rule meant to remain live?
>>
>>The latter, I think. I'm not sure how to specify that.
>>
>>Jeff
>
>Since you seem to also have /w/ occuring before other stops, and no "sink"
>for it, you could just reassign this process as allophonic or delay it until
>after the newest /w/'s are live too.
I'll delay it.

>> >John Vertical
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Uutiset ja kasvot uutisten takaa. MSN Search, täyden palvelun hakukone.
>http://search.msn.fi