Danish iirc.
Also any language that loses final stops can be argued to be leniting them in a way.
And what about the possibility that this allophonic rule could be ignored, such when a noun that normally ends in a gender ending has that ending removed (basically this is a disfix) in the construct state?Frislander wrote: ↑13 Sep 2018 17:00Danish iirc.
Also any language that loses final stops can be argued to be leniting them in a way.
Sounds like a good way to restore word-final stops, no issue with that imho.Ahzoh wrote: ↑13 Sep 2018 17:12And what about the possibility that this allophonic rule could be ignored, such when a noun that normally ends in a gender ending has that ending removed (basically this is a disfix) in the construct state?Frislander wrote: ↑13 Sep 2018 17:00Danish iirc.
Also any language that loses final stops can be argued to be leniting them in a way.
That's actually quite perfect, as I was planning for a family to have a North Branch, which would fuse the palatals and retroflexes, and then have it split into Deltic and North Islandic subbranches, the latter of which would fuse the retroflexes (or palatals) with the Dentals, except /s/>θ and /ʂ/>/s/, with a palatalazation of the velars before certain vowels somewhere along the way.Frislander wrote: ↑13 Sep 2018 17:00I'd say it's more plausible for a palatal to retroflex direction rather than vice-versa, because retroflexes resit any kind of palatal co-articulation simply due to their articulatory properties, whereas palatal consonants (or at least palatalised consonants) gain at least some degree of retroflexion fairly often.
No, because they're different kinds of change. It's perfectly fine for the glide to change when on its own but palatalisations like you describe to carry on as normal, and honestly I'd expect that over /j/ becoming lateral everywhere. Glides in general can behave pretty wildly; one example which particularly comes to my mind is how in certain Austronesian languages, original glides remained as-is, but phonetic-glides inserted automatically before and after high vowels underwent fortition (e.g. Narum *laqia > *lia > ləjeəh, *duha > *dua > dəbeh but *ayam > ayam, *jaway > jaweəy).yangfiretiger121 wrote: ↑14 Sep 2018 04:04 To paraphrase myself (and make sure the question gets answered), does [j→ʎ] change the outcome of palatalizations ([kʲ→c], etc.)? If so, how?
I'd say so as a complex change, where i>e with subsequent lowering.
One of my conlang derived prenasals from germinate nasals.
(geminate) Stops and (geminate) nasals are possible. The voicing might also change.
Hate to break it to you, mate, but [ʃc] is still illegal as [ʃ] is postalveolar and [c] is palatal. I think you meant [ɕc]. Unfortunately, you'll have to wait for someone better-versed than me for other options.Ælfwine wrote: ↑15 Sep 2018 00:23 In one of my langs, out of the blue, I've decided it would become intolerant of heterorganic consonant clusters (e.g. all consonant clusters must have the same POA.)
To accomplish this, I've decided that palatalization will operate, transforming clusters like [sk] into [ʃc], and an epenthetic schwa vowel will be inserted in between "illegal" consonant clusters, like [rk] -> [rək].
Is this a realistic thing to do? Secondly, besides palatalization and epenthesis, what else might I expect to happen?
I assume the language in question treats [ʃ] as palatal, as some languages do.yangfiretiger121 wrote: ↑15 Sep 2018 03:11Hate to break it to you, mate, but [ʃc] is still illegal as [ʃ] is postalveolar and [c] is palatal. I think you meant [ɕc]. Unfortunately, you'll have to wait for someone better-versed than me for other options.Ælfwine wrote: ↑15 Sep 2018 00:23 In one of my langs, out of the blue, I've decided it would become intolerant of heterorganic consonant clusters (e.g. all consonant clusters must have the same POA.)
To accomplish this, I've decided that palatalization will operate, transforming clusters like [sk] into [ʃc], and an epenthetic schwa vowel will be inserted in between "illegal" consonant clusters, like [rk] -> [rək].
Is this a realistic thing to do? Secondly, besides palatalization and epenthesis, what else might I expect to happen?
How strong is the binary-ness of these two types? Because my conlang Vrkhazhian has SOV order but fits neither type.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject%E2%80%93object%E2%80%93verb wrote:In linguistic typology one can usefully distinguish two types of SOV languages in terms of their type of marking:
- dependent-marking has case markers to distinguish the subject and the object, which allows it to use the variant OSV word order without ambiguity. This type usually places adjectives and numerals before the nouns they modify and is exclusively suffixing without prefixes. SOV languages of this first type include Japanese and Tamil.
- head-marking distinguishes subject and object by affixes on the verb rather than markers on the nouns. It also differs from the dependent-marking SOV language in using prefixes as well as suffixes, usually for tense and possession. Because adjectives in this type are much more verb-like than in dependent-marking SOV languages, they usually follow the nouns. In most SOV languages with a significant level of head-marking or verb-like adjectives, numerals and related quantifiers (like "all", "every") also follow the nouns they modify. Languages of this type include Navajo and Seri.
I don't think it's that rigid. For one, binary types of languages almost never hold up in language typology and second Wikipedia does not even cite a source, IINM. Also, I don't know many SOV natlangs, but at least some of the ones I know, do not fit nicely.Ahzoh wrote: ↑18 Sep 2018 16:46How strong is the binary-ness of these two types? Because my conlang Vrkhazhian has SOV order but fits neither type.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject%E2%80%93object%E2%80%93verb wrote:In linguistic typology one can usefully distinguish two types of SOV languages in terms of their type of marking:
- dependent-marking has case markers to distinguish the subject and the object, which allows it to use the variant OSV word order without ambiguity. This type usually places adjectives and numerals before the nouns they modify and is exclusively suffixing without prefixes. SOV languages of this first type include Japanese and Tamil.
- head-marking distinguishes subject and object by affixes on the verb rather than markers on the nouns. It also differs from the dependent-marking SOV language in using prefixes as well as suffixes, usually for tense and possession. Because adjectives in this type are much more verb-like than in dependent-marking SOV languages, they usually follow the nouns. In most SOV languages with a significant level of head-marking or verb-like adjectives, numerals and related quantifiers (like "all", "every") also follow the nouns they modify. Languages of this type include Navajo and Seri.
Yes, this looks like it would be length-induced vowel syncope.CarsonDaConlanger wrote: ↑19 Sep 2018 14:49 Is a system in which vowel length is affected by the length of the following morphemes realistic?
I.E:
sak+a=saka
sak+ā=skā
What do you mean by "Latinesque pronoun structure"?yangfiretiger121 wrote: ↑23 Sep 2018 16:21 Does object-subject-verb syntax work with a Latinesque pronoun structure?
Although I don't hear anything rhotic in "göttlich", the audio Wiktionary gives for "Öl" sounds very strange to me. Could a native German speaker perhaps weigh in on this? Is that really how "Öl" is pronounced?yangfiretiger121 wrote: ↑23 Sep 2018 16:21 Judging by Wiktionary, the vowels in göttlich and Öl have an un-trilled /r/ tagged onto the end in Standard German. Having fronted [o→ø], does Dyoan need the trilled /r/ in words similar to ᴀʟꜱɪɴᴅᴏᴇʀ?
Although I don't hear anything rhotic in "göttlich", the audio Wiktionary gives for "Öl" sounds very strange to me. Could a native German speaker perhaps weigh in on this? Is that really how "Öl" is pronounced?yangfiretiger121 wrote: ↑23 Sep 2018 16:21 Judging by Wiktionary, the vowels in göttlich and Öl have an un-trilled /r/ tagged onto the end in Standard German. Having fronted [o→ø], does Dyoan need the trilled /r/ in words similar to ᴀʟꜱɪɴᴅᴏᴇʀ?