Re: DECAL: Examples #3: Phonological change rules (Modified by Tristan McLeay)
|From:||Tristan McLeay <conlang@...>|
|Date:||Friday, January 14, 2005, 5:36|
On 14 Jan 2005, at 8.18 am, Sai Emrys wrote:
My apologies for sending this straight to you! My brain doesn't pay
enough attention as it should! I wish Gmail would start being normal
for a change.
Either that or something's up with my mailer---hopefully this time it
goes where it should.
> Same deal.
This one's harder and may not be entirely complete---I stopped
conlanging for a while (uni) and have been focussing on nouns since I
restarted; when writing down inflected forms I don't have rigid rules
and don't mind finding some irregularities. I reckon it gives the
language quality (aesthetic reasons, then :). This *doesn't* include
changes from Common Germanic to Ancient Føtisk, nor AF to OF, excepting
when they're still relevant to present process.
> Try to use /UR/->[SR] / X_# type rules (e.g. /C/ -> [-vd C] / [-vd C]
> _ ) (# = word boundary).
> Q1: What are your *phonologically driven* sound change rules? I.e.,
> these will apply to *all* situations, once higher-level UR processes
> are done (e.g., morphology). Be sure to include the order of
> application, if it's relevant (e.g., you have feeding). This includes
> cases that are caused by word boundaries, syllable boundaries, cluster
> conflicts (e.g. VC + CV in a CVCV limit), etc.
No more than one fricative (doesn't apply over word boundaries):
[fricative] -> [stop] / _[fricative']
Unless [fricative] is /s/, when:
[fricative'] -> [stop] / s_
Where [stop] is the voiceless stop at the same POA.
(Note that in the application of this rule, /k/ is sometimes the stop
it is thus likely that another process, x -> f occurs in conditions
I haven't fully worked out.)
Voicing must agree (regressive assimilation) (probably applies over
[-vd C] -> [+vd C] / _[+vd C']
Except word initially, when:
[+vd C'] -> [-vd C] / #[-vd C]_
[+vd C] -> [-vd C] / _[-vd C']
Unless [+v C] has no voiceless counterpart (though here a voiceless
allophone is likely)
b -> v / [vowel]_[vowel']
f -> v / [vowel]_[vowel']
Both unstable and/or irregularly included in the orthography.
Old Føtisk --- Only regressive devoicing assimilation and VV -> V / _CC
> Q2: Ditto - but for *morphophonology* or otherwise non-general cases.
> E.g., the prefix in- for English (-> r, l, m by context) - it only
> applies to that morpheme, not generally AFAIK. Again, include order of
d -> v in some inflected forms
g -> j in some inflected forms
g -> dZ in some inflected froms
/ng/ [Ng] -> /n/ [n] in some inflected forms
AF & OF:
g -> v in some inflected forms
x -> f in some derivatives
e, i, 2, y -> a, e, &\, 2 in some inflected forms and derivatives
o, u -> Q, o (ditto)
u, o, A, Q -> y, 2, &, &\ (ditto)
Vn -> VV / _[fricative] in some inflected forms
(some more too that I have worked out/can't remember etc.)
VVC and VCC alternations in some inflected forms
dZs -> tS (a marginal phoneme)
> Q3: Motivation, again? (If anything other than purely aesthetic, or
> you can give details of why you think your choices made for better
d -> v was because I wanted an ancient Germanic language that did
something more interesting to its [T] and [D]. VVC/VCC alternations are
from the intended Scandinavian influence, again. But for everything
else it was on a whim (or rather, it's based on processes that were
decided on a whim) or occasionally for nice germanicness.