Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: natlang precedent?? vcc > v:c

Expand Messages
  • BPJ
    ... AFAIK it s usually the other way around: _CC shortens and _CV or even _C# lengthens. In 14th century Scandinavian: * V:C V:C * VCC VCC
    Message 1 of 9 , May 4, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      2013-05-03 21:37, Matthew Boutilier skrev:
      > i was wondering if anyone knew, off the top of their head, of an instance
      > where a short vowel preceding a geminate consonant lengthens when the
      > language as a whole loses phonemically distinctive consonant gemination.
      >
      > so, like, to account for all the original syllable structures:
      > *biki > biki
      > *bikki > bīki
      > *bīki > bia̯ki (the diphthongization is separate; happens before the
      > aforementioned geminate-loss thing)
      >
      > well??
      >
      > thanks in advance,
      > matt
      >


      AFAIK it's usually the other way around: _CC shortens
      and _CV or even _C# lengthens. In 14th century Scandinavian:

      * V:C > V:C
      * VCC > VCC
      * V:CC > VCC
      * V(:)# > V:
      * VC > V:C, some times/places/words VCC
      * V(:) > V / [-stress]

      Aptly known as the Scandinavian quantity shift.
      Other Germanic languages had similar shifts in
      vowels at about the same time with concommitant
      loss of consonant length. Needless to say there
      are still fringe dialects with the old system;
      e.g. the Swedish of Finland still has stressed VC#.

      AFMOC Linjeb has a twist (partly suggested on this
      list, by Alex IIRC): first vowels lengthen before
      voiced plosives (P/PP), later voiceless P / V_V >
      voiced and all PP > voiceless P.

      /bpj
    • Matthew Boutilier
      yeah, i was thinking that as well. thanks for the Scandinavian info. all i myself could really think of was examples like OE æppel apple modern
      Message 2 of 9 , May 4, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        yeah, i was thinking that as well. thanks for the Scandinavian info.

        all i myself could really think of was examples like
        OE æppel 'apple' > modern /'æp(ə)l/
        OE sitteþ 'sits' > archaic modern /'sɪtɪθ/

        but not with lengthening of the vowel.

        at a conference last year, i heard a very interesting talk about how
        variouslanguages (in particular, O
        E / Middle English) deal with short-V + single-C mid-word ... how different
        languages tend towards either adding a mora to the V, or *doubling* the C. but
        anyway, that doesn't really help me.

        i could always do *bikki > *biki and then have open-syllable lengthening.
        but that would probably merge with *biki.

        i originally was planning on having a *glottal stop mobil**è* doing
        certain work in my noun- and verb-morphology, rather than the geminate
        consonant:
        *biki > biki
        *biʔki > (*bihki >) bīki
        *bīki > bia̯ki
        whatever, i don't know. i would *also* have to get rid of the
        gemination separately,
        but i suppose the output of that could merge with the output of *biki. that
        would really mess with my semitic-like morphology, though.
        *biki > biki
        *bikki > (also) biki
        *biʔki > (*bihki >) bīki
        *bīki > bia̯ki

        although that probably would be nothing novel. does modern Hebrew even have
        phonemic consonant length? i was at a talk on Hebrew the other day and the *
        pi`el* form of *gadal* "to grow" was cited as *gidel*, not *giddēl *as i
        believe it would've appeared in classical Hebrew. i don't know if anyone
        here knows about this.

        ok, done rambling.

        thanks,
        matt

        On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 5:37 AM, BPJ <bpj@...> wrote:

        > 2013-05-03 21:37, Matthew Boutilier skrev:
        >
        > i was wondering if anyone knew, off the top of their head, of an instance
        >> where a short vowel preceding a geminate consonant lengthens when the
        >> language as a whole loses phonemically distinctive consonant gemination.
        >>
        >> so, like, to account for all the original syllable structures:
        >> *biki > biki
        >> *bikki > bīki
        >> *bīki > bia̯ki (the diphthongization is separate; happens before the
        >> aforementioned geminate-loss thing)
        >>
        >> well??
        >>
        >> thanks in advance,
        >> matt
        >>
        >>
        >
        > AFAIK it's usually the other way around: _CC shortens
        > and _CV or even _C# lengthens. In 14th century Scandinavian:
        >
        > * V:C > V:C
        > * VCC > VCC
        > * V:CC > VCC
        > * V(:)# > V:
        > * VC > V:C, some times/places/words VCC
        > * V(:) > V / [-stress]
        >
        > Aptly known as the Scandinavian quantity shift.
        > Other Germanic languages had similar shifts in
        > vowels at about the same time with concommitant
        > loss of consonant length. Needless to say there
        > are still fringe dialects with the old system;
        > e.g. the Swedish of Finland still has stressed VC#.
        >
        > AFMOC Linjeb has a twist (partly suggested on this
        > list, by Alex IIRC): first vowels lengthen before
        > voiced plosives (P/PP), later voiceless P / V_V >
        > voiced and all PP > voiceless P.
        >
        > /bpj
        >
      • BPJ
        ... My notation was perhaps not all that clear. Scandinavian usually had lengthening of short vowels before short consonants, but sometimes -- in specific
        Message 3 of 9 , May 6, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          2013-05-05 01:46, Matthew Boutilier skrev:
          > yeah, i was thinking that as well. thanks for the Scandinavian info.
          >
          > all i myself could really think of was examples like
          > OE æppel 'apple' > modern /'æp(ə)l/
          > OE sitteþ 'sits' > archaic modern /'sɪtɪθ/
          >
          > but not with lengthening of the vowel.
          >
          > at a conference last year, i heard a very interesting talk about how
          > variouslanguages (in particular, O
          > E / Middle English) deal with short-V + single-C mid-word ... how different
          > languages tend towards either adding a mora to the V, or *doubling* the C. but
          > anyway, that doesn't really help me.


          My notation was perhaps not all that clear.
          Scandinavian usually had lengthening of short vowels
          before short consonants, but sometimes -- in specific
          words -- it was the consonant which lengthened instead,
          e.g. in OSc /wika/ 'week' > Sw /v\ek:a/ although
          /v\e:ka/ (and /v\ik:a/) are also found in dialects. In
          some cases the divergent development prevented merger
          between related forms as when /wit/ 'intelligence,
          sanity' > /v\et:/ while /weit/ 'knows' > /v\e:t/ but of
          course there's no plan to it! The notaition with CC is
          customary because original long consonants and clusters
          pattern alike in preventing V lengthening and causing
          V: shortening -- except that both were sometimes
          sensitive to the presence of morpheme boundaries --
          usually enforced by related clusterless forms. Thus
          /reisti/ 'raised' > /re:ste/ rather than **/reste/.
          Actually vowel length in inherited Swedish words is
          entirely predictable from stress, coda weight and
          morpheme structure with some affixes inhibiting vowel
          shortening.

          Vulgar Latin had similar form of syllable structure
          dependent vowel quantity shift: Latin contrastive vowel
          length was lost but in most of VL a stressed V not
          followed by a CC/C: was lengthened. Iberian Romance
          differs in that all stressed V were lengthened. Just
          like in Scandinavian and M. English lengthened [I] and
          [U] merged with [e] and [o] rather than with [i] and
          [u], except in Sardinia and, by Augustine's testimony,
          in Africa. In Balkan Romance only [U] > /u/.

          > i could always do *bikki > *biki and then have open-syllable lengthening.
          > but that would probably merge with *biki.

          Why? It depends on in which order open syllable
          lengthening and CC simplification occur. This said the
          Scandinavian quantity shift was probably a *single*
          process which shoehorned all stressed syllables to be
          long, so that there were no short or overlong syllables
          anymore. If you are using some sound change applying
          software just ordwer open syllable lengthening before
          geminate shortening -- or have dialects doing it
          differently if you can't decide! :-)

          /bpj

          > i originally was planning on having a *glottal stop mobil**è* doing
          > certain work in my noun- and verb-morphology, rather than the geminate
          > consonant:
          > *biki > biki
          > *biʔki > (*bihki >) bīki
          > *bīki > bia̯ki
          > whatever, i don't know. i would *also* have to get rid of the
          > gemination separately,
          > but i suppose the output of that could merge with the output of *biki. that
          > would really mess with my semitic-like morphology, though.
          > *biki > biki
          > *bikki > (also) biki
          > *biʔki > (*bihki >) bīki
          > *bīki > bia̯ki
          >
          > although that probably would be nothing novel. does modern Hebrew even have
          > phonemic consonant length? i was at a talk on Hebrew the other day and the *
          > pi`el* form of *gadal* "to grow" was cited as *gidel*, not *giddēl *as i
          > believe it would've appeared in classical Hebrew. i don't know if anyone
          > here knows about this.
          >
          > ok, done rambling.
          >
          > thanks,
          > matt
          >
          > On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 5:37 AM, BPJ <bpj@...> wrote:
          >
          >> 2013-05-03 21:37, Matthew Boutilier skrev:
          >>
          >> i was wondering if anyone knew, off the top of their head, of an instance
          >>> where a short vowel preceding a geminate consonant lengthens when the
          >>> language as a whole loses phonemically distinctive consonant gemination.
          >>>
          >>> so, like, to account for all the original syllable structures:
          >>> *biki > biki
          >>> *bikki > bīki
          >>> *bīki > bia̯ki (the diphthongization is separate; happens before the
          >>> aforementioned geminate-loss thing)
          >>>
          >>> well??
          >>>
          >>> thanks in advance,
          >>> matt
          >>>
          >>>
          >>
          >> AFAIK it's usually the other way around: _CC shortens
          >> and _CV or even _C# lengthens. In 14th century Scandinavian:
          >>
          >> * V:C > V:C
          >> * VCC > VCC
          >> * V:CC > VCC
          >> * V(:)# > V:
          >> * VC > V:C, some times/places/words VCC
          >> * V(:) > V / [-stress]
          >>
          >> Aptly known as the Scandinavian quantity shift.
          >> Other Germanic languages had similar shifts in
          >> vowels at about the same time with concommitant
          >> loss of consonant length. Needless to say there
          >> are still fringe dialects with the old system;
          >> e.g. the Swedish of Finland still has stressed VC#.
          >>
          >> AFMOC Linjeb has a twist (partly suggested on this
          >> list, by Alex IIRC): first vowels lengthen before
          >> voiced plosives (P/PP), later voiceless P / V_V >
          >> voiced and all PP > voiceless P.
          >>
          >> /bpj
          >>
          >
        • Alex Fink
          Offlist, earlier, I told Matt that I remember an example of VC: V:C being shown on the list in the last few years! But I couldn t find it in five minutes of
          Message 4 of 9 , May 6, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Offlist, earlier, I told Matt that I remember an example of VC: > V:C being shown on the list in the last few years! But I couldn't find it in five minutes of searching.

            I've remembered one quasi-instance, though. Latin had the "littera rule" according to which V:C and VC: irregularly alternated in some circumstances, e.g. _littera_ ~ _lītera_ 'letter', _Iuppiter_ ~ _Iūpiter_ 'Jupiter', when C was a voiceless stop, and usually when V was high. But I think here the V:C is thought to have been the older.
            Google tells me the rule applied in other contexts too, like _flamma_ ~ _flāma_.
            www.ninjal.ac.jp/phonology/Ranjan-abstract.pdf‎
            conf.ling.cornell.edu/weiss/Observations_on_the_littera_rule.pdf‎

            On Sat, 4 May 2013 18:46:25 -0500, Matthew Boutilier <bvticvlarivs@...> wrote:

            >at a conference last year, i heard a very interesting talk about how
            >variouslanguages (in particular, O
            >E / Middle English) deal with short-V + single-C mid-word ... how different
            >languages tend towards either adding a mora to the V, or *doubling* the C. but
            >anyway, that doesn't really help me.

            Which languages were cited? (If it's just Germanic, it's dangerously little to base a cross-linguistic generalisation on.)

            I'd expect the direction of this change to be dependent on the isochronic type of the language in question. The change VC > V:C (or VC > VC:) has the effect of equalising the length of syllables, and so it's the sort of thing you'd expect in a syllable-timed language (or I guess a stress-timed one, like Germanic is, where syllables rather than morae bear stress). If we want examples of VC: > V:C while VC remains, I'd think to go looking in a mora-timed language.

            >but i suppose the output of that could merge with the output of *biki. that
            >would really mess with my semitic-like morphology, though.

            Is gemination morphological in your language, or does it distinguish roots?

            >although that probably would be nothing novel. does modern Hebrew even have
            >phonemic consonant length? i was at a talk on Hebrew the other day and the *
            >pi`el* form of *gadal* "to grow" was cited as *gidel*, not *giddēl *as i
            >believe it would've appeared in classical Hebrew. i don't know if anyone
            >here knows about this.

            I'll throw in my lay understanding: no, it shifted to a fricativity contrast (intervocalically; of course, stops stayed stops elsewhere). The change has the name "begadkefat spirantisation", where "begadkefat" is just a list of the affected consonants, i.e. all the plain stops. Standard Modern Hebrew having been rephonologised by German, none of these pairs remain allophonic, or morpho-allophonic (whatever the term should be). On *t d g the distinction has collapsed. On *p b k it remains, but other mergers have split /b/ < *bb from /v/ < *b, *w and /k/ < *kk, *q from /X/ < *k, *ḥ, and loans have split /p/ from /f/.

            Alex
          • Matthew Boutilier
            ... ok, this is fantastically cool. thank you. ... oh, there was no such cross-linguistic generalization made. theory-wise it was very responsible. i really
            Message 5 of 9 , May 6, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Alex Fink <000024@...> wrote:

              > Offlist, earlier, I told Matt that I remember an example of VC: > V:C
              > being shown on the list in the last few years! But I couldn't find it in
              > five minutes of searching.
              >
              > I've remembered one quasi-instance, though. Latin had the "littera rule"
              > according to which V:C and VC: irregularly alternated in some
              > circumstances, e.g. _littera_ ~ _lītera_ 'letter', _Iuppiter_ ~ _Iūpiter_
              > 'Jupiter', when C was a voiceless stop, and usually when V was high. But I
              > think here the V:C is thought to have been the older.
              > Google tells me the rule applied in other contexts too, like _flamma_ ~
              > _flāma_.
              > www.ninjal.ac.jp/phonology/Ranjan-abstract.pdf‎
              > conf.ling.cornell.edu/weiss/Observations_on_the_littera_rule.pdf‎
              >

              ok, this is fantastically cool. thank you.


              >
              > On Sat, 4 May 2013 18:46:25 -0500, Matthew Boutilier <
              > bvticvlarivs@...> wrote:
              >
              > >at a conference last year, i heard a very interesting talk about how
              > >variouslanguages (in particular, O
              > >E / Middle English) deal with short-V + single-C mid-word ... how
              > different
              > >languages tend towards either adding a mora to the V, or *doubling* the
              > C. but
              > >anyway, that doesn't really help me.
              >
              > Which languages were cited? (If it's just Germanic, it's dangerously
              > little to base a cross-linguistic generalisation on.)
              >

              oh, there was no such cross-linguistic generalization made. theory-wise it
              was very responsible. i really forget the details, though, but it was
              strictly an explanatory account of whatever happened between OE and ME.


              >
              > I'd expect the direction of this change to be dependent on the isochronic
              > type of the language in question. The change VC > V:C (or VC > VC:) has
              > the effect of equalising the length of syllables, and so it's the sort of
              > thing you'd expect in a syllable-timed language (or I guess a stress-timed
              > one, like Germanic is, where syllables rather than morae bear stress). If
              > we want examples of VC: > V:C while VC remains, I'd think to go looking in
              > a mora-timed language.
              >
              > >but i suppose the output of that could merge with the output of *biki.
              > that
              > >would really mess with my semitic-like morphology, though.
              >
              > Is gemination morphological in your language, or does it distinguish roots?
              >

              morphological. well, if i have it at all (assuming i can come up with a
              convincing story for how it came into being), it will be morphological.


              >
              > >although that probably would be nothing novel. does modern Hebrew even
              > have
              > >phonemic consonant length? i was at a talk on Hebrew the other day and
              > the *
              > >pi`el* form of *gadal* "to grow" was cited as *gidel*, not *giddēl *as i
              > >believe it would've appeared in classical Hebrew. i don't know if anyone
              > >here knows about this.
              >
              > I'll throw in my lay understanding: no, it shifted to a fricativity
              > contrast (intervocalically; of course, stops stayed stops elsewhere). The
              > change has the name "begadkefat spirantisation", where "begadkefat" is just
              > a list of the affected consonants, i.e. all the plain stops. Standard
              > Modern Hebrew having been rephonologised by German, none of these pairs
              > remain allophonic, or morpho-allophonic (whatever the term should be). On
              > *t d g the distinction has collapsed. On *p b k it remains, but other
              > mergers have split /b/ < *bb from /v/ < *b, *w and /k/ < *kk, *q from /X/ <
              > *k, *ḥ, and loans have split /p/ from /f/.
              >

              well, but i don't know when this phonemic fricativity contrast would ever
              have existed. once upon a time (inherited from proto-semitic), the
              causative (*pi`el* 'binyan' in Hebrew grammars; an unfortunate name because
              central *`ayin* cannot geminate) was marked by gemination of the middle
              consonant (and different vowels) ... so,
              *gadal 'he grew' *giddel 'he caused to grow'
              then, as you say, the begadkefat spirantization occured (and i'll throw in
              Hebrew's open-syllable lengthening), producing:
              BHeb *gādal* (phonetically [ga:'ðal]) 'he grew,' and *giddēl *'he caused
              to grow' (since BS did not affect geminates) ... so it was always
              singleton-AND-fricative or geminate-AND-plosive.
              then, as you say, German had no /ð/, nor does it distinguish geminate
              consonants ... so, AFAIK, modern Hebrew would do something like
              *gadal* 'he grew' *gidel* 'he caused to grow,' with the intervocalic
              fricativization (which was never really phonologically distinctive, i
              think) AND consonantal gemination both gone. or am i missing something?

              matt
            • Matthew Boutilier
              ... this is really interesting. my inner Neo-grammarian imagines that this was originally dialectical differences, and then different things got generalized in
              Message 6 of 9 , May 7, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                > My notation was perhaps not all that clear.
                > Scandinavian usually had lengthening of short vowels
                > before short consonants, but sometimes -- in specific
                > words -- it was the consonant which lengthened instead,
                > e.g. in OSc /wika/ 'week' > Sw /v\ek:a/ although
                > /v\e:ka/ (and /v\ik:a/) are also found in dialects. In
                > some cases the divergent development prevented merger
                > between related forms as when /wit/ 'intelligence,
                > sanity' > /v\et:/ while /weit/ 'knows' > /v\e:t/ but of
                > course there's no plan to it! The notaition with CC is
                > customary because original long consonants and clusters
                > pattern alike in preventing V lengthening and causing
                > V: shortening -- except that both were sometimes
                > sensitive to the presence of morpheme boundaries --
                > usually enforced by related clusterless forms. Thus
                > /reisti/ 'raised' > /re:ste/ rather than **/reste/.
                > Actually vowel length in inherited Swedish words is
                > entirely predictable from stress, coda weight and
                > morpheme structure with some affixes inhibiting vowel
                > shortening.
                >

                this is really interesting. my inner Neo-grammarian imagines that this was
                originally dialectical differences, and then different things got
                generalized in the standard? but it's good to know that *something* like
                what i proposed exists somewhere.


                >
                > Vulgar Latin had similar form of syllable structure
                > dependent vowel quantity shift: Latin contrastive vowel
                > length was lost but in most of VL a stressed V not
                > followed by a CC/C: was lengthened. Iberian Romance
                > differs in that all stressed V were lengthened. Just
                > like in Scandinavian and M. English lengthened [I] and
                > [U] merged with [e] and [o] rather than with [i] and
                > [u], except in Sardinia and, by Augustine's testimony,
                > in Africa. In Balkan Romance only [U] > /u/.


                aha, i always knew i'd find some use for Augustine.


                > i could always do *bikki > *biki and then have open-syllable lengthening.
                > but that would probably merge with *biki.
                >

                Why? It depends on in which order open syllable
                > lengthening and CC simplification occur. This said the
                > Scandinavian quantity shift was probably a *single*
                > process which shoehorned all stressed syllables to be
                > long, so that there were no short or overlong syllables
                > anymore. If you are using some sound change applying
                > software just ordwer open syllable lengthening before
                > geminate shortening -- or have dialects doing it
                > differently if you can't decide! :-)
                >

                yeah ... hah! dialects are another thing i'm sorting out. and, the thing
                is, i normally wouldn't do open-syllable lengthening *at all* (at least in
                my main daughter family); i'm just trying to avoid it, as i'm up to my ears
                in long vowels as it is.

                in case you're wondering, i've resolved to go back to my old friend *glottal
                stop mobilè*:
                *qiʔˈkā (probably *[qihˈkaː] > kɰīˈkā 'he/she drank'
                *qiˈkā > kuˈkā 'they drank'

                and *qī- would diphthongize to qia̯- (>kɰia̯) or something.

                matt
              • Alex Fink
                ... Oh hey, what do I find in John V s documentation of Livonian sound changes but a case of this change applying to all sonorants. (Also only when the
                Message 7 of 9 , May 11, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Fri, 3 May 2013 14:37:09 -0500, Matthew Boutilier <bvticvlarivs@...> wrote:

                  >i was wondering if anyone knew, off the top of their head, of an instance
                  >where a short vowel preceding a geminate consonant lengthens when the
                  >language as a whole loses phonemically distinctive consonant gemination.

                  Oh hey, what do I find in John V's documentation of Livonian sound changes but a case of this change applying to all sonorants. (Also only when the following vowel is /a/, but apparently /a @/ was the entire unstressed vowel inventory at this point so its relevance is probably only prosodic?)
                  http://www.frathwiki.com/Finnish#Proto-Finnic_to_Livonian s.v. "Length II / degemination"

                  Alex
                • Matthew Boutilier
                  yah, that s what i m talking about!!!! thank you, Alex. thanks for tuning into this week s episode of sound changes i devised for a conlang aren t actually
                  Message 8 of 9 , May 12, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    yah, that's what i'm talking about!!!! thank you, Alex.

                    thanks for tuning into this week's episode of "sound changes i devised for
                    a conlang aren't actually totally insane." (come back next time to see how
                    *q becomes /kʁ/ before long non-back vowels.)

                    matt


                    On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:28 PM, Alex Fink <000024@...> wrote:

                    > On Fri, 3 May 2013 14:37:09 -0500, Matthew Boutilier <
                    > bvticvlarivs@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > >i was wondering if anyone knew, off the top of their head, of an instance
                    > >where a short vowel preceding a geminate consonant lengthens when the
                    > >language as a whole loses phonemically distinctive consonant gemination.
                    >
                    > Oh hey, what do I find in John V's documentation of Livonian sound changes
                    > but a case of this change applying to all sonorants. (Also only when the
                    > following vowel is /a/, but apparently /a @/ was the entire unstressed
                    > vowel inventory at this point so its relevance is probably only prosodic?)
                    > http://www.frathwiki.com/Finnish#Proto-Finnic_to_Livonian s.v. "Length
                    > II / degemination"
                    >
                    > Alex
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.