Yay or Nay?

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
Pabappa
sinic
sinic
Posts: 260
Joined: 18 Nov 2017 02:41
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Pabappa » 18 Sep 2019 04:55

Ælfwine wrote:
18 Sep 2019 02:42
Is it possible that:

ɵ > o next to velars or labials (uvulars, retroflexes will have already forced /ɵ/ to back to /o/)
ɵ > ø > e otherwise.
a: > æ:
ɑ > ɒ
a a: ɒ: appear from later sound changes.
I'll answer this. Most of these changes seem "reasonable" to me, as vowels can literally do almost anything (compared to consonants at least.) Generally though, vowels are motivated by chain shifts: movement in one area of the vowel space can cause movement of others. Nonetheless, none of this looks unreasonable, except perhaps the lower vowel space would seem crowded with /æː/, /aː/ and /ɒː/ with what you already have (but again, vowels do not need to be perfectly aligned.)



Should I delete word final schwa in my Crimean Gothic conlang?

A bit of background: the Crimean Gothic language (not the conlang) had likely reduce most of Biblical Gothic's unstressed vowels to schwa (to the point were the former can be derived from the latter) by the 16th century. Currently, I keep schwa and write it as <ъ>. An exception to this is the combination /jə/, which is written with the "small yer" <ь>.

Now, I want to innovate an allophonic soft-hard contrast, sort of like in Russian, mostly under influence from Russian through its loanwords. This would be a fairly recent change in the language, perhaps only two centuries ago, around the same time I plan to delete schwa. Besides loanwords, I could also palatalize consonants preceding schwa if there is a /j/ phoneme between them: an example of this kind of word is the name for the peninsula itself, кримь (currently: [ˈkʰrimjə]) to [ˈkʰriːmʲ] with deletion of the schwa and glide, and palatalization of the previous consonant. Someone in discord remarked that this is fairly similar to the state of affairs in Romanian, which I like because Romania is a close neighbor of Crimea and the Ukraine.

I am somewhat worried though this would ruin some of my grammar, as currently the strong feminine and neuter stems are distinguished in number and partially case by a final schwa (there written <е> as I haven't updated it to reflect the change to yer), though I suspect voicing might still be a distinguishing feature, at least among plosives.

So what do we think? Kill the schwa?

i have two questions:
1) does the schwa occur only word-finally? If it occurs elsewhere, would you also delete it there?
2) Does this language allophonically palatalize all vowels before /i/? Ive heard it said that that's how Romanian got the way it did, but it may not be necessary to do this if your language already has preexisting /jə/ sequences.
Sorry guys, this one has the worst sting.

Ælfwine
roman
roman
Posts: 932
Joined: 21 Sep 2015 01:28
Location: New Jersey

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Ælfwine » 18 Sep 2019 07:52

Pabappa wrote:
18 Sep 2019 04:55
i have two questions:
1) does the schwa occur only word-finally? If it occurs elsewhere, would you also delete it there?
2) Does this language allophonically palatalize all vowels before /i/? Ive heard it said that that's how Romanian got the way it did, but it may not be necessary to do this if your language already has preexisting /jə/ sequences.
1.) Schwa can occur elsewhere, yes.
2.) I've thought of doing this, though its worth mentioning /i/ is rare in an unstressed or final syllable. Furthermore, both /jə/ and /i/ would not carry any grammatical significance, unlike Romanian, but Russian and Ukrainian loanwords would make it more common. It seems to be an areal feature, as Crimean Tatar seems to be picking up palatalization as well.
My Blog
Current Projects:
Crimean Gothic — A Gothic language spoken in Crimea (duh)
Pelsodian — A Romance language spoken around Lake Balaton
Jezik Panoski — A Slavic language spoken in the same area
An unnamed Semitic language spoken in the Caucus.

ɶʙ ɞʛ
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 106
Joined: 02 Aug 2019 18:47

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by ɶʙ ɞʛ » 02 Oct 2019 01:40

Is this plausible?

qk > qʞ > ʛ > ʕ or something like that?

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4499
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Creyeditor » 02 Oct 2019 23:29

It's hard to say anything about the plausibility of anything involving uvular implosives and the velar click because they are so rare. If you just want to go from *qk to /ʕ/ I would suggest lenition.

1. Assimilation in stop clusters creates geminates
qk > qː
2. Geminates plosives become fricatives in certain situations (first lenition)
qː > χː
3. Uvulars become pharyengal
χː > ħː
4. Fricatives lenite to glides
ħː > ʕː
5. Degemination of glides
ʕː > ʕ

The three last changes could occur in any order.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :idn: 4 :fra: 4 :esp:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]

ɶʙ ɞʛ
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 106
Joined: 02 Aug 2019 18:47

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by ɶʙ ɞʛ » 03 Oct 2019 02:25

I was thinking of a way to have /qk/ > /ʕ/ while not leniting a plain /q/. Also, qk > q' > ʛ > ʕ seems more realistic than qʞ. Didn't ʛ just randomly show up in two isolated Mayan languages, from q'?

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4499
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Creyeditor » 03 Oct 2019 21:23

Right, that's what I meant, two languages randomly having it means there is some precedent, but that's it. I don't really see how the uvular implosive could become a pharyngeal approximat in one step.

How about this? Uvular stops can alternate with pharyngealized velars and maybe this only happens to the geminate for some reason? This pharyngealized stop could then become an approximant.
qk > qː > kʕ > ʕ
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :idn: 4 :fra: 4 :esp:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]

ɶʙ ɞʛ
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 106
Joined: 02 Aug 2019 18:47

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by ɶʙ ɞʛ » 04 Oct 2019 01:14

That could work. However, ɓ ɗ > w l is attested, so I think the same thing could happen to ʛ, but again, this isn't really worth anything.

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4499
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Creyeditor » 11 Oct 2019 21:39

I guess there were intermediate steps for these changes. Also /ʛ/ would become /ʁ/ analogically, right?
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :idn: 4 :fra: 4 :esp:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]

Post Reply