zompist bboard

Okay. Somehow, I forgot about /pʲ/. What are likely outcomes for it?

Thanks for the help, guys.

What are likely outcomes of /tʲ sʲ/? [pr̥ʲ tr̥ʲ kr̥ʲ sr̥ʲ]? I'm reasonably sure the sequences would end in /ʂ/ but want to make sure.

As of now, Outsider has both /ʃ ʂ/. Essentially, I'm asking if the sounds are stable enough to coexist, and, if they aren't, which would survive the merger.

Before I post my combined recap, is /ʃ→ʂ/ or the reverse more likely?

Are /ʈʂ ʂ/ more likely outcomes for /c ç/ than /t͡ʃ ʃ/?

Is /ɳ/ a likely outcome for /mʲ nʲ→ɲ/ in Outsider? The idea is that /ʝ/ is supposed to be Outsider's only palatal or palatalization.

Got it.

What are likely outcomes for /r̥ʲ rʲ/, if any exist?

Dulce de leche ? As Sal points out, a surprising number of people mistake this for Italian and pronounce it with /ʧ/ Hmm? It'd be /le.ke/ in Italian because <ch> is always /k/, while the <c> in words such as ciao is always /ʧ/. Another example is Chievo /ki.e.vo/. He's talking about the <c> in dulc...

Dulce de leche ? As Sal points out, a surprising number of people mistake this for Italian and pronounce it with /ʧ/ . Mostaccioli is a staple at weddings in St Louis (at least within a certain social stratum), but the local pronunciation is with /ˈməsk/ rather than /ˈmɔst/. It wouldn't have occurr...

Would /j→ɟ/ or /j→ʝ/ be more likely? I don't like the insertion of a /g/ phoneme where one never existed before (/ɟ/ sounds like <gy>).

Generally, /ɹ̝̊ ɹ̠̊˔/ are only adjacent to /t s/. However, I pronounce [sɹ̝̊] as [ʃɹ̝̊] due to speaking English natively. As for the single voiceless nasal, Altrunians merged [nk ŋ~ŋ] (< nk ng >) before devoicing several consonants. Is /ŋ/ still valid after the devoicing? I figured they may devoice ...

Great! Would /ʃ͡ɹ̠̊˔/ or [ʃɹ̠̊˔] be the most likely outcome of <shr> since both components are voiceless post-alveolar fricatives?

Which inventory layout below is correct for the coarticulations since they have their own IPA table?
(a)
/m n ɲ ŋ̊ n͡m/
etc, or
(b)
/m n ɲ ŋ̊/
...
/n͡m/
...

Okay. Apparently, /ɹ̠̊˔/ is a better transcription for <r> than /ʁ/ because it pairs with voiceless consonants, such as /k/. Is /j/ likely to survive into Outsider?

Okay. Is there a feasible way to merge /j→ʁ/ (/ʁ/ being fricative and paired with its trill /ʀ/ in allophony), or would the change have to be something like /j→ɹ̠̊˔/? Somewhere along the line, there was a /w→ɰʷ→ɰ/ as well. Sound changes nʲ→ɲ (likely) kʲ→c (likely) xʲ→ç (???) c→t͡s (likely) ç→θ/θ̠ (l...

Okay. The current palatal-velar-uvular relationship (e. g. /c k q/) works out so only palatals and velars, such as /c k/, appear in Galactic Standard while only velars and uvulars, such as /k q/, appear in the Outsider language. The only exception is the /j→ʁ/ in Outsider because /ʁ/ always represen...

The general rule for -<Cia> and -<Ciu> is for the <i> to palatalize the preceding consonant, creating /mʲ nʲ/ among many others. Could the palatalizations with corresponding consonants have morphed into those consonants (/nʲ→ɲ/) somewhere along the line? The replacement of palatals with uvulars (/c→...

That makes sense.

According to some linguists lateral offglides, such as /kˡ/, are no different than clusters, such as /kl/. By this logic, would /nʲ/ be the same as /ɲ/?

Edit: Inserted "lateral offglides"

I just added the -khi (/xi/) suffix, which creates adjectives similar to some uses of "-ar" and "-tic" in English, to the first post. Examples: Sha'i (/'ʃɑ.ʔi/): ice→Sha'ikhi (/'ʃɑ.ʔi.xi/): Arctic Ru'a (/'ʀu.ʔɑ/): water→Ru'akhi (/'ʀu.ʔɑ.xi/): Aquatic Chi'u (/'çi.ʔu/): Pole→Chi'ukhi (/'çi.ʔu.xi/): Po...

Common (pre-Unification): Balinor ['bal.ɪn.o(ɹ)]→Altrunian: Ba'inor ['bɔ.ʔi.nɔ(ɹ)]→Galactic Standard: Pawinar ['pɑ.ɰi.nɑʀ] Common (pre-Unification): Balos ['ba.los]→Altrunian: Ba'os ['bɔ.ʔɔs]→Galactic Standard: Pawas ['pɑ.ɰɑs] Common (pre-Unification): Styx ['stɪks]→Altrunian: Styx ['stʏx]→Galactic ...

Intergalactic Standard and Pahus use a simplified hieroglyphic alphabet. Currently, khi'a (['xi.ʔɑ]) (linked because hieroglyphs aren't supported) means either sieve or placenta as an ideogram. Do I need to come up with another word for placenta as sieve will be the more common meaning?

Point.

I worded to incorrectly, but that's no reason to call me a troll. I'm asking because "dead" can be either a noun or an adjective while "kill" can be either a noun or a verb ("to kill").

Travis B. wrote:<snip>
Ruo. Ruo. Ruo. Ruo. Ruo. Ruo. Ruo.
dead dead dead dead dead dead dead
[ɻuo̯ ɻuo̯ ɻuo̯ ɻuo̯ ɻuo̯ ɻuo̯ ɻuo̯]
Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill.

How's "dead" become "kill"? Yes, both may be nouns, but dead's second usage is as an adjective while kill's is as a transitive verb.

Is having [c k] as one glyph with /k/ as the underlying phone workable?