Post your conlang's phonology

[cromulant]

Whatever, I know now that it is an apical.

Wrong.

[finlay]

*The "rounded" consonants, including /w/, are not labialized—the effect is created entirely inside the mouth by cupping the tongue.

Emphasis mine.

wtf. this doesn't even make sense.

[Kvan]

Yeah, I kept rereading it thinking the same thing.

Rounded inherently means labializing. The lips round while articulating "rounded" consonants not the tongue curling. Those would be, I guess if you had a curled tongue, retroflex. Depending of course on the type of "curling" you're doing.

[Soap]

ptcamn posts on this board as 'vlad', maybe he can explain. I believe what it means though is that the linguists who came up with the transcription for the language were just using ʷ because it was familiar and acoustically similar, rather than having to create a new symbol.

edit: I guess he changed his name, does he still post here?

[cromulant]

Can anyone access JSTOR, consult 3.3 and resolve this?

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1264085

(Vlad quit).

I think this is roninbodhisattva's specialty; he might know.

[----]

I posted the phonology for my newest project a while back and it was a bit unfinished, there were a lot of things I wasn't sure about with it, so I think it's time to repost it, but much more organized and better overall!

Sorit phonology

Stops: [p t k b d g pʼ tʼ kʼ]
Nasals [m n (ɲ) (ŋ) (ɴ)]
Fricatives/Affricates: [s ʂ t͡s ʈ͡ʂ t͡sʼ ʈ͡ʂʼ ç c͡ç x ɣ χ ʁ]
Approximants: [l j]

Vowels: [ɐ ɛ ɪ ɤ ɯ a e i ɔ ʊ ɞ ɵ]
There are a few diphthongs
Allophony

The stops are generally pretty regular, no craziness there, but a lot of the phonemes can have several different realizations depending on their environment. /n/ is a notably nebulous one, but very predictable, [ɲ] next to palatals, [ɴ] next to uvulars, etc. /x/ becomes [ç] next to front vowels, /ɣ/ becomes [j] next to front vowels, /ʁ/ is [χ] next to unvoiced consonants, and /s/ becomes [ʂ] in more convoluted cases, which are as follows:
/s/ becomes [ʂ]: at the beginning of words before front vowels, medially between two front vowels, or at the end of words preceded by a front vowel. Additionally, it can be orthographically doubled medially or at the end of words as <ss> to become [ʂ] next to anything.

The vowels have different values depending on whether they're in stressed or unstressed syllables. Stress always falls on the second syllable of a word. Monosyllabic words always take an unstressed vowel.
Unstressed vowels: [ɐ ɛ ɪ ɤ ɯ]
Stressed vowels: [a e i ɔ ʊ]
The other two vowels kinda do different things, they have the same value in all syllables, but [ɞ] is in free variation with [ə] and [ɵ] is the same with [ʉ].

This is pretty much all I've got with it, this language is my main project and will be for a long while, and I will be devising a constructed culture/world to go with it, so it's very important to me! Therefore, comments and criticisms, observations, and all that is appreciated and encouraged! Ask away, my fellow Zbboardians!

[finlay]

ptcamn posts on this board as 'vlad', maybe he can explain. I believe what it means though is that the linguists who came up with the transcription for the language were just using ʷ because it was familiar and acoustically similar, rather than having to create a new symbol.

edit: I guess he changed his name, does he still post here?

no, he doesn't.

This whole thing is a bit too fishy for me. We have no data because the language is now extinct. Ladefoged & Maddieson (1996) don't have anything to say about it, so I'm not sure whether this is labialisation or something else like retroflexion (from the description it sounds like it – after all, 'cupping the tongue' isn't exactly a scientific description)

[Lyhoko Leaci]

Can anyone access JSTOR, consult 3.3 and resolve this?

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1264085

(Vlad quit).

I think this is roninbodhisattva's specialty; he might know.

Well, it says it's not actual labialization and is instead a cupping of the tongue of some sort... What exactly are you asking about?

[finlay]

what the hell that means in scientific linguistic terms.

[ná'oolkiłí]

Can anyone access JSTOR, consult 3.3 and resolve this?

Hmm, I'm not sure this will really resolve anything...

Earlier interpretations have left the impression that rounded velars were lacking from the system as distinctive elements. However, Boas, Edel and Jacobs all recorded rounded velars sporadically; the notations, in fact, are rather contradictory. It is now clear why this problem arose. There are postvelars which are best described as having a kind of [ɔ] timbre, apparently created by cupping of the tongue, not by any rounding of the lips. Similarly, there are front velars with [ï] coloring, and again the effect is created entirely inside the mouth. These oppose and contrast with otherwise very similar segments which have [E] or [ɪ] coloring. E.g., hə́wqʷ fire, tecyə́wq he's dead; łenšˀənə́xʷi I know, sxiswíni I like it

Tillamook /w/ also involves this sort of internal rounding, so that it is inaccurate to characterize it as a labial element at all. The same feature reappears in the vowel system, where we find that the elements earlier written [u uː o oː] actually involve diphthongs characterized by increasing internal rounding, and certainly best interpreted as /əw/. The nature of such segments was clearly suggested by Jacobs; his notes describe carefully the frequent alternation of (apparent) high back rounded vowels plus w.

These distinctions are elusive and difficult to catch, and two other aspects of the language combine to obscure the contrast between rounded and unrounded velars. (1) The vowels /e a/ are to a great extent complementarily distributed in the neighborhood of velars, /a/ occurring before and after rounded velars, /e/ appearing before and after plain ones. But since these vowels are in contrast in some positions, and the coloring of rounded velars is little different from that of /a/, it is easy to be misled that the distinction in such environments rests with the vowels and not the consonants. (2) Very front unrounded velars (often unreleased with a sort of y-glide) appear before /i/ in forms which are cognate with rounded velars or w in other Salish languages (e.g., ḳín how many?, cf. Kalispel ḳʷínš; kís above, cf. Kalispel wís). Linguists aware of the correspondences would naturally consider this supporting evidence for the hypothesis that all rounded velars had been lost.

Thus (aside from the few anomalous examples referred to in 2) Tillamook is meaningfully characterized as a language totally devoid of labial elements

I'll get section 2 later maybe.

[p-glyphs]

Why not just change it?

That's not how this exercise is designed to work.

going further with the inclusivity metaphor shenanigans to amuse myself, you've also ended up just describing your voiceless unaspirated stops as "unaspirated" and then use Maori words to demonstrate this. Now since we've already established from "[a] as in cot" that you are aiming your pronunciation guide at natives of Chicago or the Inland North of America, who are you now aiming at? Other Chicagoites who happen to have learnt a bit of Maori? I'm just going to stick my neck out a little here and point out that this probably isn't many. But then you complicate it further, by calling upon other languages to support your pronunciation guide: Mandarin, which you end up getting wrong anyway, and Japanese, confusingly mentioned in the same breath as Mandarin without any disambiguation (besides, what are the chances that your hypothetical reader doesn't know IPA but does know Mandarin, Japanese and Maori, can recognise each language as being that, and knows the pronunciation on an intimate enough level for your purposes? Bear in mind that after all that they still don't know the IPA. These things are easy for the likes of you or me, but only because we know the IPA...). And then we get into even thornier issues with "[o] as in vote", which works for a limited number of speakers of English. And the English speakers that have [o] in vote don't tend to congregate in Chicago or New Zealand. But we'll come back to the main question poking at us: who are you actually aiming this guide at? Is it other conlangers? Because in that case, just give a phoneme inventory in the IPA. Is it your mates in New Zealand? Because alright, they might have a better shot at the unaspirated stops from any knowledge of Maori, assuming they can get their head around the technical jargon that is the word "unaspirated" – and for that matter, "tap" and "stressed" – but they'll trip up on like, all the vowels. You kinda need to remember that to someone who doesn't know the IPA, assuming that you are actually going to show them this, it's not trivial when you write pronunciation guides like this what you're referring to. It's all fine and well to say [a] as in cot or as in boot, but there is no a or u in either of those words, so yeah, ok it's fair to assume that it's the vowel but you can't always assume that. To a person that doesn't know the IPA, [ɔ] could be a consonant – after all, it looks like c.

Is this really something you care about or is it just teen angst? I recall you saying:

you've shown that you're capable with the IPA, so just use that!

Are we honestly lost in the dark?

Of course I believe what you say is with merit—perhaps even warranted. But when you package like that, don't be surprised when people aren't receptive. What's more interesting is how you've so much invested in this belief system that any deviation has to be instantly silenced. Learn to pick your battles bro. It's only fun, after all.

This long, tortured display only makes both of us look small. You wear it poorly cause you care about image. I'm not fussed cause, well, I'm new and, more importantly, because this is an internet forum... full of internet people and internet feelings. Kinda like the cops of video games. Sure, now I'm here fueling the fire because well... when I see someone about to set himself on fire I let him. I'm not above wanting the last word. You knew this from our introduction.

It's no contest. And if it is, what prize in hell are we competing for? I don't like it when we fight like this—toys flying everywhere. It's not what I'm good at

[finlay]

words

I... wait, what? wtf are you talking about now?

[----]

I don't mean to instigate but can't you guys take this to private messages or something? The debate's not really related to this thread very much anymore o:

[roninbodhisattva]

I think this is roninbodhisattva's specialty; he might know.

I do specialize in Salish (currently, at least), but I'm confused at this entire exchange. What's exactly the question, whether Salish has rounded consonants? Salishan languages usually contrast unrounded (non-labialized) and rounded (labialized) dorsal consonants, so you get stuff like /k k' kʷ k'ʷ x xʷ q q' qʷ q'ʷ χ χʷ/. In some languages, the plain velar series has fronted to post-alveolars: *k *k' *x > č č' š, or some such.

But I don't know if this is what y'all were looking for or not. This confused the fuck out of me, honestly. Also, I know nothing about Tillamook specifically.

[cromulant]

I think this is roninbodhisattva's specialty; he might know.

I do specialize in Salish (currently, at least), but I'm confused at this entire exchange. What's exactly the question, whether Salish has rounded consonants? Salishan languages usually contrast unrounded (non-labialized) and rounded (labialized) dorsal consonants, so you get stuff like /k k' kʷ k'ʷ x xʷ q q' qʷ q'ʷ χ χʷ/. In some languages, the plain velar series has fronted to post-alveolars: *k *k' *x > č č' š, or some such.

But I don't know if this is what y'all were looking for or not. This confused the fuck out of me, honestly. Also, I know nothing about Tillamook specifically.

I wanted someone to look into Thompson (1966) and shed some light on the articulation of "rounded" consonants in Tillamook to confirm, debunk or clarify ptcamn's comment.

I also thought you might know about this off the top of your head.

Anyway, it's been answered. Thanks, ná'oolkiłí.

[TallaFerroXIV]

Here is the phonology of my WIP lang.


Phonology:

/p pɦ b t t^ɦ d k k^ɦ g/ <p ph b th d k kh g>
/f s z ^tʃ ^dʒ/ <f s z c zh>
/ɬ l/ <ł l>
/r ɹ/ <rr r>
m n ŋ/ <m n ŋ>

/i e ɛ ɑ ɔ o u/ <i e é a ó o u>

Consonant clusters:
plosive+ fricative, liquid,nasal
Fricative+liquid,nasal
liquid (lat)+ r, ɹ (and visa versa)
nasal+plosive

Diphtongs:

/i/ → /j/ and /u/ → /w/

i+( e ɛ ɑ ɔ o u ) and vise versa
u+( e ɛ ɑ ɔ o u ) and vise versa

ɑ+(e ɛ ɔ o )= ə
e+ ( ɛ ɑ )= æ
e+(ɔ, o)= œ

Phonetactics

/b/ /d/ and /g/ become /β/ /ð/ and /ɣ/ if they are before a vowel or a sonorant consonant.

/ɹ/ is /Ɂ/ between vowels

/e/ is /ə/ if final
/ɑ/ is /a/ if final
/ɛ ɔ/ become closed if final
/i/ and /u/ become /ɪ/ and /ʊ/, respectivly, if final.
/n/ gets velarized infront of /k/ /k^ɦ/ or /g/, so it becomes /ŋ/


Anything that makes your eyes bleed?

[roninbodhisattva]

/^tʃ ^dʒ/

For the love of god just make these affricates.

[TallaFerroXIV]

*sight* Okay....

[Astraios]

Anything that makes your eyes bleed?

This:

visaversa

[TallaFerroXIV]

How do you spell it in English then?

Or is that not the problem. Because even though you stated something you didn't like, you didn't justify it.

Be a bit clearer.

[tezcatlip0ca]

vice versa.

[Tropylium]

/pɦ t^ɦ k^ɦ/

You mean "/pʰ tʰ kʰ/"? /ɦ/ is the voiced glottal fricative.

ɑ+(e ɛ ɔ o )= ə
e+ ( ɛ ɑ )= æ
e+(ɔ, o)= œ

Are these contractions or umlauts or what?

Phonetactics

"OK, you call their receptionist, I'll hit the helpdesk, and Annie is going to attempt a direct line to HR; Peggy is still trying to dig up their janitor's cell's number, but that's a last-stretch effort."

/b/ /d/ and /g/ become /β/ /ð/ and /ɣ/ if they are before a vowel or a sonorant consonant.

/ɹ/ is /Ɂ/ between vowels

/e/ is /ə/ if final
/ɑ/ is /a/ if final
/ɛ ɔ/ become closed if final
/i/ and /u/ become /ɪ/ and /ʊ/, respectivly, if final.
/n/ gets velarized infront of /k/ /k^ɦ/ or /g/, so it becomes /ŋ/

/stuff/ becomes [stuff], if it's allophonic.

Not sure if all that is, however… if /e/ and /ɛ/ contrast for example, and by /ɛ/ becoming closer finally you mean [e], then you might only need to say that only /e/ occurs finally.

[finlay]

*fricative.

[roninbodhisattva]

*fricative.

My first reaction to this was thinking "a language with no fricatives."

[Zaris]

This is the current phonology for my WIP Kterno Toya.

Code: Select all

Plosives: /p t k d g/
Nasals: /m n/
Fricatives: /B\ f s S C x/
other sonorants: /j l r/

vowels: /i e a o u/

painfully simple. But it is my first. maybe one of these days Ill make a crazy phonology...