The CBB

Monophtongs in reduced syllables are reduced to a (a), e (e, i, æ, or y), or o (o, u, or ø), diphthongs reduce their first (syllabic) element but the non-syllabic part is unaffected. This is reflected in the orthography. In general words can't end in short vowels so long vowels in final open syllabl...

Not sure what GMP stands for, but I can definitely give the sound changes. The SCA2 annotated code is in the spoiler: V=aeiouæøy-^~123 U=aeiouæøy I=æiiøyeyy A=aeeooæøø O=oøyouøøy C=ptkbdgfþsʃhvðzʒɣlrmnŋjw P=pbfvm T=tdþsðzlrn K=kghɣŋ N=mnŋ J=ij W=uw X=123 Z=-^~ Y=aeeooeoe Q=fþshvðzɣlrmnŋjw ̄/-/_ ̂/^/...

So I've got this to a stage where I'm reasonably happy to talk about it here. The initial seed was to make a Germanic language in which weak verbs were remodelled as strong verbs (rather than the reverse which happened in the irl Germanic languages). The phonology's mostly pretty uninteresting and s...

English /ʃ/ developed from /sk/ in Old English (although in Northumbrian it was sometimes preserved, apparently under Norse influence).

:lat: … [->] :esp: … periculum [->] peligro miraculum [->] milagro parabola [->] palabra crocodilus [->] cocodrilo There's a pretty regular pattern to most of these that (after voicing and some vowel reduction/elision) you have metathesis in rVDl. Cocodrilo doesn't really seem to be a metathesis so...

Similar processes are given as the reason for Spanish "arbol" from Latin "arbor" amongst others (although Spanish also has unrelated metathesis of r and l in some cases).

What are the differences between a fusional and an agglutinative language? Fusional languages encode multiple meanings in grammatical morphemes, -kio could be present tense, imperfect aspect, conditional mood. Agglutinating languages separate these into multiple morphemes. What else characterizes a...

Basque may have played a role. Old Basque contrasted gemination for /n l r /, but not for stops or the labial nasal /m/. Old Basque is unlikely to have played a huge role in the development of Latin, given our current understandings of history. Isn't Old Basque usually given as the reason for Spani...

I'm fairly boring, essentially standard modern RP so am pretty close to the charts here . KIT [ɪ̈] DRESS [ɛ̝] TRAP [æ̞] LOT [ɔ̞] STRUT [ɐ] FOOT [ʊ̈] BATH [ɑ̘ː] CLOTH [ɔ̞] NURSE [ɜ̝ː] FLEECE [ïː] FACE [e̞ɪ̯̈] PALM [ɑ̘ː] THOUGHT [ɔ̝ː] GOAT [əʊ̯] GOOSE [ʉ̙ː] PRICE [a̙ɪ̯̈] CHOICE [ɔ̝ɪ̯̈] MOUTH [ɑ̘ʊ̞̯] N...

I imagine kids look them up in dictionaries and then spread them amongst themselves

edit: I doubt this is the only mechanism, but suspect most of the learning is through unofficial channels e.g. like this, or graffiti, or just from other students

Some of those (particularly the -tho words) reminds me of some of Noah Webster's suggestions that never caught one so, given the time period, it's possible this person was just another member of that trend. I think at the same time there was a trend for writing Vgh as V̂ e.g. "though" as "thô" and i...

What about unstated implicit objects? Would those use the transitive or intransitive verb, or would you disallow such sentences by requiring an explicit object. E.g. which (or what combination) of the following is/are acceptable "did you see 2 the dog" "I did see 1 " "did you see 2 the dog" "I did s...

Yeah, it possibly used to cost a sixpence pre-decimalisation.

How are these " " and ' ' used? I've learnt the standard: "word" and 'its meaning', like "al-kaatib" means 'the scribe'. But sometimes I see them used vice versa. (I'm from the UK) I was taught to use " " for direct speech, quotations, etc and wasn't really taught any rules for ' '. I use ' ' for q...

Lego is singular, it means one individual Lego brick. Hence, Legos. Well in the UK Lego refers to the company/product as a whole, not to the individual bricks. It's just one of those minor differences between Englishes on either side of the pond that really sticks out when it comes up. I believe th...

/m n ŋ/ <м н ң> -> <m n ň> /p b t d k ɡ q/ <п б т д к г қ> -> <p b t d k g q> /*t͡s *t͡ɕ/ <ц ч> -> <c ç> /*f *v s z ʃ ʒ *ɕ x ʁ *h/ <ф в с з ш ж щ х ғ һ> -> <f v s z ş z̧ *ş h ğ *h> /l j w/ <л й у> -> <l y w> /r/ <р> -> <r> /ɘ~ɪ ʉ ə ʊ/ <і ү ы ұ> -> <i u e o> /əj~ɘj ʊw~əw~ʉw~ɘw <и у> -> <ey ow> /i̯ɘ y...

Now, perhaps this is to some degree a matter of taste, but having been originally introduced to linguistics by Tolkien and Zompist back when the internet was young, I can't help but feel that inconsistent use of diacritics when creating an orthography is, at best, a rookie mistake. I'd agree if it ...

isn't that a (maybe nasalised) bilabial click?

English has a few with the reflex of OE /æ/, <sc> /ʃ/, and <ċ> /tʃ/ (respectively as both /æ/ & /a/, /ʃ/ & /sk/, and /k/ & /tʃ/). The situation here is fairly well understood as a case of multiple intermediate lects. In particular, the OE standard was West Saxon; Modern English descends primarily fr...

You could potentially justify it as having two intermediate varieties, one continuing final /o/ and the other unrounding it to /a/ and then have the final variety be some sort of mixed lect, either descending from one and borrowing some words from the other, or potentially as a full-on koiné of the ...