Re: sound change question

Roger Mills sikyal:

> Sylvia Sotomayor wrote:
> > That is possible, though I'm getting rid of [m], too. [w] will stay,
> > however. I'm thinking of turning [l] or maybe [r] into something else
> > as well. Any ideas?
> >
> I'm not sure it's attested in any natlang (and no reason why not in a
> conlang ;-))), but m > w seems reasonable.  If the closure at the lips is
> relaxed, you'd get a nasalized w, which could then easily merge; or perhaps
> your /w/ phoneme is a little nasalized anyway, subphonemically??  Another
> possibility:  /m/ via [w~] > hw, xw, Nw or kw (thus merger with your p > kw
> or whatever, if you decide on that).
If it makes you feel any better, I have *m > w in the change from
Proto-Yivril to Old Yivrian. I remember I asked a similar question some
time ago about that exact change, and everyone agreed that it was
plausible.

If it makes a difference, the PY > OY change was across the board: m, n, N
> w, r, j.
Jesse S. Bangs jaspax@u.washington.edu
http://students.washington.edu/jaspax/
http://students.washington.edu/jaspax/blog

Jesus asked them, "Who do you say that I am?"

And they answered, "You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground
of our being, the kerygma in which we find the ultimate meaning of our
interpersonal relationship."

And Jesus said, "What?"