zompist bboard

That's a good point. I guess because in English (and I'd assume most languages) indicative is unmarked, it's hard to ever get rid of it.

depends on the environment. you'd prob have 4 syllable-initially and r\ syllable-finally What about intervocally? I had the idea of varying it in my conlang, depending on the vowels. For instance [iɾa], but [aɹi], or something like that. (I'm new to the forum; so sorry if I'm bringing up my conlang...

Yes, [d] can easily become any of [n r ɾ ɹ l], though its change is often more conditioned (whereas [n r ɾ ɹ l] can often intermingle in unconditioned changes). For an example with [n], compare Hebrew ben with Aramaic bar . One of the distinguishing features of Seneca is that historical /r/ became ...

Well that's reassuring, conlang-wise. Linguistics-wise that's somewhat intriguing though. You mentioned [n r ɾ ɹ l], but I'd imagine [d] and [t] to be common as well. In fact, I'm somewhat surprised that [n] is in there. I wonder how and why the nasality creeps in.

I wish you provided a gloss, as the most interesting thing in your sample is its demonstration of the relative non-configurationality of Polish. What also stood out to me in your sample (Pole, the), is that you pronounce <musiałbym> as [muˈɕawbɨm]. For me, the stress is on the first syllable here: ...

Are there any languages which obligatorily mark mood, but do not mark, or optionally mark, tense and/or aspect?

How common are rhotic approximants (as in most dialects of English)? Specifically, I mean ones which pattern as liquids? (I'm not quite sure if they ever don't actually.) My main conlang (well, my main naturalistic conlang) has an alveolar approximant that in some environments is realized as an alve...