Re: U-umlaut & schwa shifts

On 16/03/06, John Vertical <johnvertical@...> wrote:
> So here's two sound shift issues I've been thinking about recently.
>
> *The u-umlaut seen in the development of Germanic languages is essentially
> labialization (/i/ -> /y/ etc); is velarization-u-umlaut - where /i/ goes to
> /i\/ or /M/ instead, etc - attested anywhere? If yes, is raising (eg. /O o/
> -> /o u/) typically involved too?
I'm of the general impression that frontness and labialisation are
contagious, but backness isn't. On the other hand, you could have a
back vowel causing a /k/ to become [q], which then causes front vowels
to be backed, all of which are attested iirc.

> *Does anyone have any creativ ideas for sound shifts starting from /@/? Mine
> are epenthetic, so deletion would be pointless. Assimilation with the
> following or preceding vowel comes first to my mind, but seems a little too
> obvious. I can also think of raising it to /i\/, but is there any precedent
> for that? Any other ideas are welcome too.
I've read a paper on the schwa in American English which claimed three
things that are relevant here:
 - (the described-variant of) American English /@/ tends towards [i\]
in closed syllables.
 - This sort of thing is really very common.
 - Dutch /@/ tends towards [i\] (possibly only in closed syllables, I
can't remember).

I can't remember anything about it the source tho, beyond that much.
It's not in my collection of them, so it could be anyone on the
internet or on my hard drive and I'm too tired to check just now...

In any case, seems to me to be less creative than assimilating to the
surrounding vowels. If you're thinking of doing a
velarising-u-harmony-type-thing, I vote you assimilate /@/ to
surrounding vowels and get a nice vowel harmony system happening.
Throw in /k/ -> [q] in back words and /k/ -> [c] in front words too
and make it a little fun :)

--
Tristan.