Post your conlang's phonology

[Herr Dunkel]

This is from one of my conlangs, Kron:

Stops: /p b t̪ d̪ c ɟ/
Fricatives: /f v s z ʃ ʒ ç/
Affricates: /ts tʃ dʒ dz ʨ dʑ c͡ç /
Misc./Approx.: /r l j/

Chagen, there's more to the world than palatals and alveopalatals.

[Nortaneous]

Yeah you're right. I should have said that a contrast between /ʨ/ and /c͡ç/ is very unlikely because they are (objectively) similar. My mission now is to find a language that does have a phonemic contrast between these two sounds

Would be much harder to find one that contrasts /c/ and /c͡ç/.

[sirdanilot]

Something with an Australian flavor that I came up with:

Plosive: /p t̪ t ʈ k/
Nasal: /m n̪ n ɳ ŋ/
Approximant: /w ɹ ɻ j ɰ/
Lateral approximant: /l̪ l ɭ/
Flap: /ɾ ɽ/
Lateral flap: /ɺ ɺ̠/
Vowels: /i e a o u/

Syllable structure: CV(C). Only /ɹ/ and /ɻ/ can occur in the coda. The CV combinations /wu/, /ɰu/ and /ji/ are impossible.

7 lateral/flap/rhotic - ish consonants? That's pretty cool, but I foresee some problems in discerning all these phonemes for the listener...

[Miiil]

Consonants
/p t ʈ t' q/
/f s/
/m ɱ n ŋ ɴ/
/ɰ l j w/

Vowels:
/i ɪ ɛ ə æ ɐ ɒ/

And two more vowels, that I'm not sure about (like german 'u' and ü)

[Acid Badger]

German <u> is /u/ and <ü> is /y/... What is that t with apostrophe supposed to mean?

[Grimalkin]

It's probably an ejective /t/.

Also, milloniare, I don't think there's a single language that has phonemic /ɱ/. As an allophone of other nasals, it's fine. But I wouldn't use it as a phoneme.

[Acid Badger]

It's probably an ejective /t/.

Most likely, yes. But then, a language with only one ejective?

[sirdanilot]

I would wonder how that ejective t got there, especially as it's not even the most easy to produce ejective consonant. Perhaps he meant a palatalized t, if so, use /c/, /tʲ/, /tʃ/ etc.

[----]

Proto language I'm gonna do some crazy stuff with:
/p t k b d g/
/pʰ tʰ kʰ bʱ dʱ gʱ/
/s zʱ ɦ/
/m n ŋ l/
/mʱ nʱ ŋʱ lʱ/

/a i u ã ĩ ũ/ + diphthongs /ja ju ai au/ and their nasal counterparts. Length is not phonemic.

-/zʱ/ results from historical sequences of s+h but is now fully phonemic.
-Syllable structure is (C)V(C) where V is any vowel or diphthong. Allowed consonant clusters intervocally include a nasal + stop at the same place of articulation, or /l/ + any stop.
-only sonorants or /s/ may end a word.
-roots are typically mono-syllabic, but disyllabic roots are also somewhat common. Trisyllabic roots are all but non-existent.

[Miiil]

I would wonder how that ejective t got there, especially as it's not even the most easy to produce ejective consonant. Perhaps he meant a palatalized t, if so, use /c/, /tʲ/, /tʃ/ etc.

It was ejective. Phonetics really isn't my strong point (well, nothing is, as I speak solely Australian English, which is a horrible example of an accent/lagnuage).

I realised after posting that that I missed /k/ and /k'/ (also ejective). Really annoying.

As yet, I'm not certain If I have any words with /ɱ/ as yet, so consider it and allophone of /m/. Or removed, I shall think it over.



How I love feedback!

[Herr Dunkel]

Yeah you're right. I should have said that a contrast between /ʨ/ and /c͡ç/ is very unlikely because they are (objectively) similar. My mission now is to find a language that does have a phonemic contrast between these two sounds

Would be much harder to find one that contrasts /c/ and /c͡ç/.

I have a weirder one: Hungarian can be analysed as contrasting /c/ and /ɟ͡ʝ/, since /c/ behaves more like a proper plosive in Hungarian while /ɟ͡ʝ/ has proper palatal friction.

[Nortaneous]

Yeah you're right. I should have said that a contrast between /ʨ/ and /c͡ç/ is very unlikely because they are (objectively) similar. My mission now is to find a language that does have a phonemic contrast between these two sounds

Would be much harder to find one that contrasts /c/ and /c͡ç/.

I have a weirder one: Hungarian can be analysed as contrasting /c/ and /ɟ͡ʝ/, since /c/ behaves more like a proper plosive in Hungarian while /ɟ͡ʝ/ has proper palatal friction.

Source?

[Herr Dunkel]

Yeah you're right. I should have said that a contrast between /ʨ/ and /c͡ç/ is very unlikely because they are (objectively) similar. My mission now is to find a language that does have a phonemic contrast between these two sounds

Would be much harder to find one that contrasts /c/ and /c͡ç/.

I have a weirder one: Hungarian can be analysed as contrasting /c/ and /ɟ͡ʝ/, since /c/ behaves more like a proper plosive in Hungarian while /ɟ͡ʝ/ has proper palatal friction.

Source?

Mária Gósy's analysis of /c/: relative duration of the friction of /c/ (as compared to the duration of its closure) is longer than those of the plosives, but shorter than those of the affricates. /c/ has the plosive-like nature of having a full duration no longer than those of other (voiceless) plosives such as /p, t, k/ but, considering the average closure time in relation to the friction time of the consonants, its duration structure is somewhat closer to those of the affricates...
Later on, she claims that /ɟ/ is closer to an affricate than /c/.
Her viewpoint contrasts with Tamás Szende's on what's an affricate and what isn't.

Also, based on my observations in Transylvania and Bánat.

[Chagen]

Possible Gskcar phoneme inventory:

/p pʰ t tʰ k kʰ q qʰ/
/s sː f fː θ θː x xː /
/w w̥ l l̥ j j̥ /
/m m̥ n n̥ /
/tʃ/

No friggin' clue what the vowels will be.

[Herr Dunkel]

Possible Gskcar phoneme inventory:

/p pʰ t tʰ k kʰ q qʰ/
/s sː f fː θ θː x xː /
/w w̥ l l̥ j j̥ /
/m m̥ n n̥ /
/tʃ/

No friggin' clue what the vowels will be.

And how do you expect a single affricate of /tʃ/ to arise (that is, it has no geminate equivalent and no aspirate)? /ts/ is faar more likely to be the only affricate. Also, why do you lack /ʃ/ when wishing for /tʃ/ while having such an unrealistically symmetric inventory?

[Chagen]

Because the affricate was in there way back when this lang was much different. I was too lazy to take it out. Also, the name of the lang would have to be changed to do that, given that the affricate shows up in the name: Gskcar.

[Herr Dunkel]

Because the affricate was in there way back when this lang was much different. I was too lazy to take it out. Also, the name of the lang would have to be changed to do that, given that the affricate shows up in the name: Gskcar.

That doesn't answer my question.
And how do you expect a single affricate of /tʃ/ to arise? Why do you lack /ʃ/ when wishing for /tʃ/ while having such an unrealistically symmetric inventory?

[ná'oolkiłí]

And how do you expect a single affricate of /tʃ/ to arise (that is, it has no geminate equivalent and no aspirate)? /ts/ is faar more likely to be the only affricate. Also, why do you lack /ʃ/ when wishing for /tʃ/ while having such an unrealistically symmetric inventory?

What about something like
*ʃ → s
*ʃː → tʃ

[Herr Dunkel]

And how do you expect a single affricate of /tʃ/ to arise (that is, it has no geminate equivalent and no aspirate)? /ts/ is faar more likely to be the only affricate. Also, why do you lack /ʃ/ when wishing for /tʃ/ while having such an unrealistically symmetric inventory?

What about something like
*ʃ → s
*ʃː → tʃ

I was asking him
But, how would you get /s:/ then?

[Astraios]

From historical /s/ and /s:/, obviously.

[Herr Dunkel]

Fair enough.

[Chagen]

Actually, the geminated fricatives are from historical aspiration.

[Herr Dunkel]

Actually, the geminated fricatives are from historical aspiration.

...yeah, you go do that.

[Grunnen]

Well, just because it's fun to do. There's nothing but a developing phonology yet. I'm still working on the diachronics, so things will probably change. If you got suggestions for directions, I'm interested.

consonants:
ʰp p b ʰt t d ʰc c ɟ ʰk k ɡ
f s ʃ χ h
m n ɲ ŋ
ʋ l r ʎ ʀ

notes
- ʰc, c and ɟ pattern as stops, but are pronounced as the affricates ʰtʃ, tʃ and dʒ respectively.
- χ and ʀ pattern with the velars
- χ can be much like a breathy x in postvocalic positions, and approach ħ in prevocalic positions.
- ʋ is formed by putting the lower lip against the upper teeth, allowing no air to escape in the middle, but letting it escape without friction at the sides. In a sense it is a lateral, except the tongue is not involved.
- r is often voiceless, and doesn't pattern with the other liquids. This is due to its recent development from s in certain positions. It may also be pronounced as a tap.
- ʀ is always uvular, but it's moa varies between trill, voiced fricative and appoximant.
- I think I will have h merge with χ, since h is always prevocalic, and χ is ħ in that position, which is fairly close to h anyway.

vowels:
monophthongs:
i ɨ u
e o
ɛ ɔ
a
diphthongs:
ai au ia ua io ue

notes
- all monophthongs can be either short or long
- the diphthongs all have the higher part (i or u) forming the glide. I analyse them as diphthongs because of their relation to syllable structure and the absence of any other combination of vowels.

[----]

Because the affricate was in there way back when this lang was much different. I was too lazy to take it out. Also, the name of the lang would have to be changed to do that, given that the affricate shows up in the name: Gskcar.

That doesn't answer my question.
And how do you expect a single affricate of /tʃ/ to arise? Why do you lack /ʃ/ when wishing for /tʃ/ while having such an unrealistically symmetric inventory?

Spanish.