Re: Some Sound Changes

>I just made a set of sound changes for yet another new project that I'd
>like opinions on.
Do you have phonotactics? That would help here I think, but it seems it's
(C)V(C) at least. Any original clusters? Or coda / onset prohibitions?
Stress?

>  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/.

>  2. kw, gw, k_hw > k_w, g_w, k_w_h
I'd expect any uvular+w clusters to behave the same too, unless /q(h)uV/
doesn't originally occur in the first place 'fcors. I think almost all
languages with both uvulars and labialized velars also have labialized
uvulars.

>  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?

>  7. tj, dj > ts), dz)     sj, zj > S, Z
....I take /t d/ are dental but /s z/ alveolar, then?
Also, where does this /zj/ come from? Did you miss a step about /s/ voicing
between a vowel and a semivowel too?

>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)

>15. i, u > 0 / VC __ CV --- but not always
Any relation to stress or the nature of the consonants? IIRC /i u/ are more
likely to be elided in the vicinity of unvoiced than voiced consonants, for
example.

>Resulting Consonants
>     p [p] t [t] tc [tS)] k(j) [k_j] k [k] kw [k_w]         b [b] d [d] dz
>[dZ)] g(j) [g_j] g [g] gw [g_w]         f [f] s [s] c  [S]   hj   [C]   x
>[x] xw [x_w] q [X] h [h]                 z  [Z]               m [m] n [n]
>        nj   [J]   n [N]                 l [l]          j    [j]         w
>[w]               r [r]
You forgot to include /z/ from /dz/, to specify /nj/ > /J/, and to get rid
of initial /?/... otherwise, looking good. Now, it's nothing super awesome,
but I can't see anything wrong in it in general, either. The evolution is a
bit dependant on onset semivowel clusters, but that's not a problem.

Hmm, a few practice words...

weaqupho > weoffo
antisima > ontrirmo (?)
puakirwa > pwotSje:wo
lethurios > lehi:jus
lethuros > lehrus
dongoresu > duNgworer

Looks like you'll get a contrast between /kw k_w/ there too... or is the
labialization rule meant to remain live?

John Vertical

_________________________________________________________________
Nyt löydät etsimäsi tiedot nopeasti niin koneeltasi kuin netistä.
http://toolbar.msn.fi