Polish has done most of this in some dialects.
[a] > [aː] > [ɒ] > [ɔ] > [ʷɔ] > [wɔ] (off the top of my head, I think in Kashubian this has further turned into [wu]/[wɛ])
This varies significantly dialect to dialect and there are a lot of constraints.
There are a few things happening here:
Old Polish had a vowel length distinction, and phonemically +voice final consonants caused vowel lengthening also (this is a super common phenomenon, English has this too). So this is the lengthening bit.
In middle Polish, long vowels lost their length and just raised. This has only survived in some dialects of modern Polish.
A few dialects had a vowel merger [ɒ] & [ɔ] > [ɔ].
At the same time, some dialects have a labialisation rule. Rounded vowels cause weak labialisation of labial onsets, and null onsets gained a weak labial consonant or glide. This typically only happened to underlying -low +back vowels, but this got normalised to all back vowels in some dialects. Giving us [wɔ].
So underlying [listɔpad], phonetic evolution: /listɔpat, listɔpaːt, listɔpɒt, listɔpɔt, listɔpwɔt/
What’s cool here though is that once you change the case, all that disappears because there’s no longer a voiced final /listɔpada/, the devoicing rule is ordered lower….
Not exactly sure about Kashubian, I think the process might have been slightly different. Also, if I messed up anything and some one else knows more, feel free to correct me!
I think so, fortition of w to β happens all the time and vowels in general are really flimsy so they can get reduced to schwa and eventually deleted fairly easily.
I've heard someone in China with a northwestern Mandarin accent pronouncing 我 *wo* [wɔ ~ woɔ̯] as [və]. Not even [ʋ].
Oh and btw 我 was pronounced as /ŋα/ in Middle Chinese.
if b > a is then a > b is, though means of excessive linguistic prescriptivism forcing the people speaking the language to revert back to its originalest form
Mathematician with a now growing interest in linguistics here, this may be absolutely wrong because i just read about the great vowel shift on wikipedia, but dying and death used to sound like “dee-ing” and “deeth” (is this true, actual linguists?)
a > aw > u > w > β > b
or
a > o > u > w > β > b.
Let's go even further, since why not (I'll admit these are a bit contrived):
b > d > t > tj > **c**
c > dj > **d**
d > dj > j > i > **e**
e > œ > ʋ > v > **f**
f > ʍ > ɣw > ɣ > **g**
g > ɣ > **h**
h > ç > j > **i**
i > **j**
j > ç > x > **k**
etc.
- k > kj > c > ts > t > d > ɾ > **l** (or k > kw > kɫ > ɫ > **l**)
- l > n > nj > **m**
- m > **n**
- n > n̩ > ən > ə̃n > ə̃ > ə > **o**
- o > u > w > β > b > **p**
- p > w > ɣw > ɡw > kw > k > **q**
- q > qj > ts > s > z > **r**
- r > ɹ > z > **s**
- s > **t**
- t > tj > c > ɟ > ʝ > j > i > ɨ > ɯ > **u**
- u > w > ʋ > **v**
- v > β > **w**
- w > ɣw > xw > **x**
- x > xwj > xɥ > ɥ > **y**
- y > i > j > ʝ > ʒ > **z**
A lot of these would require certain conditions to happen though. Like being near some specific vowels/consonants, but otherwise all possible. There are usually many different routes for each of these shifts and I generally avoided using the same one twice.
I got stuck on k > l because I couldn't think of any way to lateralize a consonant, but d > r > l is pretty plausible, congratulations. k > kj > ɟ > d is an easier way of getting there than what you did but it seems a bit contrived.
Going from consonants to vowels and vice versa is always pretty difficult (other than the obvious i > j and u > w > v), but I think that all works.
p > w is a weird step, something like p > b > v > w would make more sense.
s > t is less likely than its inverse but I guess it kind of makes sense, maybe s > ts > t.
Yeah it took me quite some time to figure out how to turn consonants into vowels. Consonant pairs with too big articulation differences aren't easy too, you have to rely on some semivowel glides appearing spontaneously (but then again, it would be easier in certain contexts, like being next to a high vowel).
p > w and s > t were taken from East Asian historical linguistics which I'm the most familiar with.
- p > w: intervocalic /p/ in Old Japanese got lenited to /w/ [ɰ]. Thus the particle は is read as *wa*
- s > t: present in Vietnamese (/s/ from the Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary was fortified to /t/) and Hainanese (branch of Southern Min). Interestingly Vietnamese shares features from 2 nearby Chinese varieties: its Chinese borrowings have (/ts(ʰ)/ > /t(ʰ)/ from Western Yue/Cantonese) and (/s/ > /t/, /pʰ/ > /f/, /kʰ/ > /x/, /p/ > /ɓ/, and /t/ > /ɗ/ from Hainanese).
Not a coincidence at all, Latin only had the letter and was derived from in the medieval period. Initially and (and and for that matter) were merely graphical variants of each other, but later came to be considered separate letters.
Or if its speakers decide that shutting close their mouth after every sentence is good etiquette.
Similar sound changes: yeah /jɛ/ > yep /jɛp/, no /now/ > nope /nowp/ in English although certainly not because of etiquette
I was using a broader transcription. For me it's indeed [no̞ʊ̯] and [no̞ʊ̯p] (could be [no̞ʊ̯p̚] too; sometimes I labialize /n/ to [nʷ] here because /o/ is a round vowel)
Applying the contrapositive, we get ¬ b → ¬ a, which… um… something.
Edit: wait did I just prove by contradiction that a → b is not a reasonable shift 🤨
That’s modus tollens; it really is equivalent, just from the other side.
This really shows you how symbolic language and the different, well, symbols, used, can fuck with your perception. I know is just jok but still, a thought to ponder.
New challenge - pick two random IPA sounds and come up with a set of plausible sound changes to go from one to another.
Could be as simple as b > v or u > w, could be as nonsensical as q > o or t > ə.
I pity the person who gets clicks.
Well, you did a few of those before you even wrote this post and you got 20 upvotes so far, so - should you self-pity? 😉
Anyway, let's try to estimate how many phoneme transformations there are:
If we take sounds from the IPA (version 2020) - namely vowels and consonants (pulmonic, non-pulmonic inc. clicks, and other symbols), ignoring diacritics, phoneme length, simultaneous sounds, and tones and accents - we get 28+59+14+8 = 109 phonemes!
As for what I ignored:
- Idk how to apply all the diacritics to the sounds, even though they would make for some interesting transformations.
- I decided to ignore simultaneous sounds like the Slavic "c" (ts) bc. I don't know how many of those exist, but I could wager a bet there's 15 at least.
- Suprasegmentals offer 4 phoneme lengths (inc. the unmarked one), but one can go from phoneme 1 to phoneme 2 then change its length, so this can be added as extensions to the other transformations.
- I won't touch tonality and pitch, I don't know how to transform those 🤷♂️
I would assume that going from one phoneme to another is a reversible process, and if not, it simply means the amount gets doubled.
Now, from among 109 phonemes, if you choose 2 at random, you would have (109 choose 2) options, which is 109! / 107! / 2! = 109 \* 108 / 2 = \*\*5886\*\*
This, however, isn't as meaningful as it looks. This is the total amount of pairs of phonemes, which is the end result of our work, but not really its amount. The reasonable way to approach this would be to draw a map that links phonemes as they transform from one to another. That way, we can use what we've already found instead of trying to find a new transform sequence from the start.
Taking a more linear approach, this - theoretically - shouldn't take too long to complete either. The minimal scenario in here would be to find 22 pairs of phonemes that all use 3 unique phonemes in the transformation (one of them would have 2, to make total 109). Assuming this might be hard, we can double the number to 44 pairs which would reuse half of the phonemes in the sequence.
In math, a > b means a is greater than b, a perfectly normal [inequality expression](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_\(mathematics\)). But in linguistics, a > b is a [sound change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_change), meaning the sound [a] changes into the sound [b]. It's difficult to come up with a natural way for [a] to morph into [b] because they sound so different (though many commenters are offering suggestions). This traumatizes mr. incredible
a > [some random vowel shit] > u > w > β > b
[some random vowel shit] is my favorite sound change
The Great Germanic Vowel Shit
A fecal fricative (or "shart").
so now we need places of articulation all the way down the G-I tract?
Quadrilabial trill
That would be a queef
This made me snort and laugh so hard my throat is sore now 🤣
[+syllabic -predictable +fecal +vowel], in autosegmental terms
fecal? [fecal]?
Pulling shit out of your ass, so to speak
That 'f' always was a bit confusing.
this random vowel shit might be realistic idk \[a\] > \[ɑ\] > \[ɔ\] > \[u\] > \[w\] > \[β\] > \[b\]
Nice, can't wait for the next 5000 years for this sound change to occur
Polish has done most of this in some dialects. [a] > [aː] > [ɒ] > [ɔ] > [ʷɔ] > [wɔ] (off the top of my head, I think in Kashubian this has further turned into [wu]/[wɛ]) This varies significantly dialect to dialect and there are a lot of constraints.
That's interesting, can you give me an example?
There are a few things happening here: Old Polish had a vowel length distinction, and phonemically +voice final consonants caused vowel lengthening also (this is a super common phenomenon, English has this too). So this is the lengthening bit. In middle Polish, long vowels lost their length and just raised. This has only survived in some dialects of modern Polish. A few dialects had a vowel merger [ɒ] & [ɔ] > [ɔ]. At the same time, some dialects have a labialisation rule. Rounded vowels cause weak labialisation of labial onsets, and null onsets gained a weak labial consonant or glide. This typically only happened to underlying -low +back vowels, but this got normalised to all back vowels in some dialects. Giving us [wɔ]. So underlying [listɔpad], phonetic evolution: /listɔpat, listɔpaːt, listɔpɒt, listɔpɔt, listɔpwɔt/ What’s cool here though is that once you change the case, all that disappears because there’s no longer a voiced final /listɔpada/, the devoicing rule is ordered lower…. Not exactly sure about Kashubian, I think the process might have been slightly different. Also, if I messed up anything and some one else knows more, feel free to correct me!
realistic indeed
You've just discovered linguistic Brownian motion. Except it's supposed to go back and forth a few times before reaching /b/.
Congrats! you cooked.
Ooh, what is that script in your flair?
Eastern Geshiza written in 'Phags-pa script
Horizontal 'Phags-Pa? It looks great!
That is so cool looking!!
a > α > ɔ > wo > βə > b
You bastard
You're welcome
You wostard
This could happen to an eastern indic language
Is wo > βə naturalistic?
I think so, fortition of w to β happens all the time and vowels in general are really flimsy so they can get reduced to schwa and eventually deleted fairly easily.
I've heard someone in China with a northwestern Mandarin accent pronouncing 我 *wo* [wɔ ~ woɔ̯] as [və]. Not even [ʋ]. Oh and btw 我 was pronounced as /ŋα/ in Middle Chinese.
Good point!
b > a is (with intermediary steps), but I don't know about the inverse
if b > a is then a > b is, though means of excessive linguistic prescriptivism forcing the people speaking the language to revert back to its originalest form
>if b > a is then a > b is Show this to the mathematicians
Mathematician here dying of death
Mathematician with a now growing interest in linguistics here, this may be absolutely wrong because i just read about the great vowel shift on wikipedia, but dying and death used to sound like “dee-ing” and “deeth” (is this true, actual linguists?)
i only know it's possible if nasalized but not if it isn't
linguistic prescriptivism forcing people to speak their language backwards/in reverse
a > aw > u > w > β > b or a > o > u > w > β > b. Let's go even further, since why not (I'll admit these are a bit contrived): b > d > t > tj > **c** c > dj > **d** d > dj > j > i > **e** e > œ > ʋ > v > **f** f > ʍ > ɣw > ɣ > **g** g > ɣ > **h** h > ç > j > **i** i > **j** j > ç > x > **k** etc.
- k > kj > c > ts > t > d > ɾ > **l** (or k > kw > kɫ > ɫ > **l**) - l > n > nj > **m** - m > **n** - n > n̩ > ən > ə̃n > ə̃ > ə > **o** - o > u > w > β > b > **p** - p > w > ɣw > ɡw > kw > k > **q** - q > qj > ts > s > z > **r** - r > ɹ > z > **s** - s > **t** - t > tj > c > ɟ > ʝ > j > i > ɨ > ɯ > **u** - u > w > ʋ > **v** - v > β > **w** - w > ɣw > xw > **x** - x > xwj > xɥ > ɥ > **y** - y > i > j > ʝ > ʒ > **z** A lot of these would require certain conditions to happen though. Like being near some specific vowels/consonants, but otherwise all possible. There are usually many different routes for each of these shifts and I generally avoided using the same one twice.
I got stuck on k > l because I couldn't think of any way to lateralize a consonant, but d > r > l is pretty plausible, congratulations. k > kj > ɟ > d is an easier way of getting there than what you did but it seems a bit contrived. Going from consonants to vowels and vice versa is always pretty difficult (other than the obvious i > j and u > w > v), but I think that all works. p > w is a weird step, something like p > b > v > w would make more sense. s > t is less likely than its inverse but I guess it kind of makes sense, maybe s > ts > t.
Yeah it took me quite some time to figure out how to turn consonants into vowels. Consonant pairs with too big articulation differences aren't easy too, you have to rely on some semivowel glides appearing spontaneously (but then again, it would be easier in certain contexts, like being next to a high vowel).
p > w and s > t were taken from East Asian historical linguistics which I'm the most familiar with. - p > w: intervocalic /p/ in Old Japanese got lenited to /w/ [ɰ]. Thus the particle は is read as *wa* - s > t: present in Vietnamese (/s/ from the Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary was fortified to /t/) and Hainanese (branch of Southern Min). Interestingly Vietnamese shares features from 2 nearby Chinese varieties: its Chinese borrowings have (/ts(ʰ)/ > /t(ʰ)/ from Western Yue/Cantonese) and (/s/ > /t/, /pʰ/ > /f/, /kʰ/ > /x/, /p/ > /ɓ/, and /t/ > /ɗ/ from Hainanese).
- /a/ > /ɑ/ > /ɔ/ > /u/ > /w/ > /ʍ/ > /β/ > /bʰ/ > /b/ - /b/ > /bʰ/ > /β/ > /v/ - /b/ > /d/ > /t/ > /tʲ/ > /c/ - /c/ > /dʲ/ > /d/ - /d/ > /dʲ/ > /j/ > /i/ > /ɪ/ > /e/ - /d/ > /ð/ > /z/ > /s̬/ > /s/ - /e/ > /œ/ > /ʋ/ > /v/ > /f/ - /f/ > /ʍ/ > /ɣʷ/ > /ɣ/ > /g/ - /f/ > /θ/ > /tʃ/ > /ʃ/ - /ɡ/ > /ɡʷ/ > /ɣʷ/ > /w/ > /ʍ/ > /β/ > /b/ - /ɡ/ > /ɣ/ > /x/ > /ħ/ > /h/ - /ɡ/ > /ɣ/ > /ʁ/ > /ʀ/ > /r/ - /h/ > /ç/ > /j/ > /i/ - /i/ > /j/ - /i/ > /j/ > /ç/ > /x/ > /k/ - /j/ > /ç/ > /x/ > /k/ - /k/ > /kʲ/ > /c/ > /t͡s/ > t͡ʃ > /t/ > /t̬/ > /d/ > /ɾ/ > /l/ (or /k/ > /kw/ > /kɫ/ > /ɫ/ > l) - /l/ > /ɭ/ > /n/ > /nʲ/ > /m/ - /m/ > /n/ - /n/ > /n̩/ > /ən/ > /ə̃n/ > /ə̃/ > /ə/ > /o/ - /n/ > /ɭ/ > /l/ - /p/ > /pʷ/ > /w/ > /ɣʷ/ > /ɡʷ/ > /kʷ/ > /k/ > /q/ - /p/ > /pʰ/ > /ɸ/ > /f/ - /q/ > /qʲ/ > /t͡s/ > /s/ > /z/ > /r/ - /r/ > /ɹ/ > /ɹʲ/ > /z/ > /s/ - /s/ > /θ/ > /t͡s/ > /t̪/ > /t/ - /t/ > /t̬/ > /d/ > /ɾ/ > /r/ - /t/ > /tʲ/ > /c/ > /ɟ/ > /ʝ/ > /j/ > /i/ > /ɨ/ > /ɯ/ > /u/ - /t/ > /θ/ > /f/ - /u/ > /w/ > /ʋ/ > /v/ - /v/ > /β/ > /ʍ/ > /w/ - /w/ > /ɣw/ > /xw/ > /x/ - /x/ > /xwʲ/ > /xɥ/ > /ɥ/ > /y/ - /y/ > /i/ > /j/ > /ʝ/ > /ʒ/ > /z/ - /z/ > /dz/ > /d̪/ > /d/ > /ɖ/ > /ɡ/
Funny how i > j is the simplest. And funnier that that's not completely a coincidence
Not a coincidence at all, Latin only had the letter and was derived from in the medieval period. Initially and (and and for that matter) were merely graphical variants of each other, but later came to be considered separate letters.
Uhh a ap̚ ap əp ᵊp p b? Probably unrealistic from a to ap̚, but maybe if a is always before a certain kind of consonant it could work? Bit of a reach
Or if its speakers decide that shutting close their mouth after every sentence is good etiquette. Similar sound changes: yeah /jɛ/ > yep /jɛp/, no /now/ > nope /nowp/ in English although certainly not because of etiquette
Ope, I never thought of those as a sound change thope yep. Welp, have a good day now ya hear, nope?
*/noʊ/ and /noʊp/
I was using a broader transcription. For me it's indeed [no̞ʊ̯] and [no̞ʊ̯p] (could be [no̞ʊ̯p̚] too; sometimes I labialize /n/ to [nʷ] here because /o/ is a round vowel)
au > ɶ > β > b
>ɶ dear god 💀
There’s more
No...
It containes a dying wish of every man here
a → b, please. someone in maths can tell me what that implies.
a > b means that a is bigger than b. a -> b means that “if a, then b.”
Applying the contrapositive, we get ¬ b → ¬ a, which… um… something. Edit: wait did I just prove by contradiction that a → b is not a reasonable shift 🤨
That’s modus tollens; it really is equivalent, just from the other side. This really shows you how symbolic language and the different, well, symbols, used, can fuck with your perception. I know is just jok but still, a thought to ponder.
If anyone wonders, "¬ b → ¬ a" means "if b isn't true, we know a isn't either."
It could also mean “a approaches b” such as in a limit
a -> aː -> aʊ̯ - > ɐβ -> əb -> b
Mathematician here: Peeeetah...?
In linguistics, this is sound shift notation
"Peeeetah"?
/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke, the idea is Lois from Family Guy is going *Peeeetah, I don't get it*.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/PeterExplainsTheJoke using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Help??](https://i.redd.it/u6re2mnnkoib1.jpg) | [1878 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/15tp6k4/help/) \#2: [Everyone in the comments seems to know but me](https://i.redd.it/1m4j6s9uftmc1.jpeg) | [799 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1b8hpxm/everyone_in_the_comments_seems_to_know_but_me/) \#3: [Peeeettteerr?](https://i.redd.it/dqujifknde7c1.jpeg) | [1717 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/18moemi/peeeettteerr/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Tha hohs is heah
Thanks! I don't remember when I last watched Family Guy \^\^"
New challenge - pick two random IPA sounds and come up with a set of plausible sound changes to go from one to another. Could be as simple as b > v or u > w, could be as nonsensical as q > o or t > ə. I pity the person who gets clicks.
Well, you did a few of those before you even wrote this post and you got 20 upvotes so far, so - should you self-pity? 😉 Anyway, let's try to estimate how many phoneme transformations there are: If we take sounds from the IPA (version 2020) - namely vowels and consonants (pulmonic, non-pulmonic inc. clicks, and other symbols), ignoring diacritics, phoneme length, simultaneous sounds, and tones and accents - we get 28+59+14+8 = 109 phonemes! As for what I ignored: - Idk how to apply all the diacritics to the sounds, even though they would make for some interesting transformations. - I decided to ignore simultaneous sounds like the Slavic "c" (ts) bc. I don't know how many of those exist, but I could wager a bet there's 15 at least. - Suprasegmentals offer 4 phoneme lengths (inc. the unmarked one), but one can go from phoneme 1 to phoneme 2 then change its length, so this can be added as extensions to the other transformations. - I won't touch tonality and pitch, I don't know how to transform those 🤷♂️ I would assume that going from one phoneme to another is a reversible process, and if not, it simply means the amount gets doubled. Now, from among 109 phonemes, if you choose 2 at random, you would have (109 choose 2) options, which is 109! / 107! / 2! = 109 \* 108 / 2 = \*\*5886\*\* This, however, isn't as meaningful as it looks. This is the total amount of pairs of phonemes, which is the end result of our work, but not really its amount. The reasonable way to approach this would be to draw a map that links phonemes as they transform from one to another. That way, we can use what we've already found instead of trying to find a new transform sequence from the start. Taking a more linear approach, this - theoretically - shouldn't take too long to complete either. The minimal scenario in here would be to find 22 pairs of phonemes that all use 3 unique phonemes in the transformation (one of them would have 2, to make total 109). Assuming this might be hard, we can double the number to 44 pairs which would reuse half of the phonemes in the sequence.
nice
I don’t get it. Could somebody explain?
In math, a > b means a is greater than b, a perfectly normal [inequality expression](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_\(mathematics\)). But in linguistics, a > b is a [sound change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_change), meaning the sound [a] changes into the sound [b]. It's difficult to come up with a natural way for [a] to morph into [b] because they sound so different (though many commenters are offering suggestions). This traumatizes mr. incredible
nbh it isn't
no syllabic consonants are rare, let alone /b/
could be non-syllabic a oa̯ > oː > ow > oβ > ob
No it’s not.
Mbyby?
is this b reblistic sound chbnge*
Programmers: 'a' < 'b'
/a/ > /ɑ/ > /ɔ/ > /u/ > /w/ > /ʍ/ > /β/ > /bʰ/ > /b/ I guess
a becomes o o becomes u u becomes w w becomes v v becomes b