zompist bboard

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:34 pm**

TaylorS wrote:
Theta wrote:This is kind of not really that big of a thing but I've noticed that SAE languages really don't ever have back unrounded vowels.
English has /V/.

Well I've read in a couple places that it's not truly a back vowel and is actually more central. And as for the /a/ thing I was really talking about the higher ones, i.e. /ɤ ɯ/

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:13 am**

Slavic langs are considered SAE, and there are SAEish conlangs (Ilian) with unrounded back vowels.

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:40 am**

Nortaneous wrote:
Chuma wrote:That thing about double versus long consonants I don't get. Is there an actual phonetic difference, or are they just analysed differently by tradition?
Wikipedia: "Strong phonemes are characterized by the intensiveness (tension) of the articulation. The intensity of the pronunciation leads to a natural lengthening of the duration of the sound, and that is why strong [consonants] differ from weak ones by greater length. [However,] the adjoining of two single weak sounds does not produce a strong one […] Thus, the gemination of a sound does not by itself create its tension."

What's the url for that? I looked at this, but to me it seems like like if it's the same as fortis consonants, then it's better to just call them long.

Nortaneous wrote:tl;dr: they can contrast with geminated consonants

Do you know of any examples?

EDIT: Never mind, it was the article on Archi. Though I still don't understand what these strong consonants really are.

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:10 am**

Nortaneous wrote:
- four degrees of vowel height
How does that work?

[i e æ a] - that would make four heights, right? (Or maybe the æ is an ɛ, I can't tell. But I have æ on my keyboard.

)

Another thing - I think someone said that a typical European thing is to have more fricatives than stops. How about it?

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:27 am**

Thanks for the information:

http://conlang.wikia.com/wiki/Miwonsa

Miwonša sounds a bit as if a Navajo tried to speak Polish, I think... or maybe a Russian Quechua?

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:02 pm**

Nortaneous wrote:
Darkgamma wrote:
Nortaneous wrote:
finlay wrote:
Darkgamma wrote:My German has /t/ /dt/ /d/ from unvoiced to mixed to fully voiced :/
Examples?
"Stadt" which I, for some wierd reason, contrast with "statt"
EDIT: Also, my <d>s devoice to /dt/ in compounds and /t/ in roots...
Bad [bat] but Badeanzug [bad͡tənaut͡suk]
Hmm. That's interesting. Do you have sound clips? Also, how would you pronounce "Städte"?

I don't have soundclips because I lack a mic

"Städte" would be like [ʃtɛd͡te] or [ʃtɛt:e], but more like something in between "Stadt" and "statt" (fortis seems quite a neat explanation "Städte" I'd say)
This does appear quite strange... I don't know if anyone else has this.
Any Austrian or Ländlemann, or even a fellow Bavarian to confirm that this isn't just plain local?

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:09 pm**

This is great, and I may make use of it next time I design a phonology, but I think it's important to note that a phonology (or at least a phoneme inventory) like this doesn't necessarily scream "European!" in the same way that, say, the SAE morphosyntax would. The set of phonemes in Japanese, for example, is fairly close to that of several European languages. Personally I'd say that the big thing that I see conlangers doing (and I'm guilty of this myself) that makes their languages look overly European is to use lots and lots of fricatives.

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2011 3:10 pm**

Chuma wrote:Another thing - I think someone said that a typical European thing is to have more fricatives than stops. How about it?

Probably. I'm not sure if there's even a way to pull off a voicing distinction in fricatives without seeming European, but it can probably be done somehow, I guess.

Plusquamperfekt wrote:http://conlang.wikia.com/wiki/Miwonsa

Miwonša sounds a bit as if a Navajo tried to speak Polish, I think... or maybe a Russian Quechua?

Looks like a SAE conlang to me, probably mostly because of the phonotactics. It doesn't look like a European lang per se, but SAE conlangs don't necessarily need to; zompist's langs don't, and most of them are SAE as hell.

Curlyjimsam wrote:This is great, and I may make use of it next time I design a phonology, but I think it's important to note that a phonology (or at least a phoneme inventory) like this doesn't necessarily scream "European!" in the same way that, say, the SAE morphosyntax would. The set of phonemes in Japanese, for example, is fairly close to that of several European languages.

Right. Phonotactics are an important part of it; CV langs don't look European at all. With the same phoneme inventory, you can have words like staun doroti donai taunkwom strekasku (European), nintendo mitsubishi hentai (Japanese), rdjong sdrup brgedk dbang kan (Tibetan), gawarrate ragawayye kewarra kangaruye (Australian), etc.

edit: Tsou has a phonology that could be called SAE if you ignore the implosives, but...

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2011 4:02 pm**

Looks like a SAE conlang to me, probably mostly because of the phonotactics. It doesn't look like a European lang per se, but SAE conlangs don't necessarily need to; zompist's langs don't, and most of them are SAE as hell.

OK, let's check (green = true, red = false, blue = partly yes, partly no)

* absence of phonemic opposition velar/uvular
* phonemic voicing oppositions (/p/ vs. /b/ etc.) as the only distinctions between sounds with the same POA and MOA
* initial consonant clusters of the type "stop+sonorant" allowed
* no initial velar nasal
a wide variety of allowable clusters that, except for those that contain a sibilant and a stop, all adhere to the sonority hierarchy
only pulmonic consonants
no phonation or secondary articulation contrasts on vowels
at least three degrees of vowel height (minimum inventory i e a o u)
lack of lateral fricatives and affricates
two series of coronals
lack of a tone or register system
at least two of each of the following type of consonant: fricative, nasal, liquid, semivowel

I'm ashamed of my phonology

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2011 4:25 pm**

Nortaneous wrote:Nintendo mitsubishi hentai

Oh my

Plusquamperfekt wrote:
Looks like a SAE conlang to me, probably mostly because of the phonotactics. It doesn't look like a European lang per se, but SAE conlangs don't necessarily need to; zompist's langs don't, and most of them are SAE as hell.
OK, let's check (green = true, red = false, blue = partly yes, partly no)

* absence of phonemic opposition velar/uvular
* phonemic voicing oppositions (/p/ vs. /b/ etc.) as the only distinctions between sounds with the same POA and MOA
* initial consonant clusters of the type "stop+sonorant" allowed
* no initial velar nasal
a wide variety of allowable clusters that, except for those that contain a sibilant and a stop, all adhere to the sonority hierarchy
only pulmonic consonants
no phonation or secondary articulation contrasts on vowels
at least three degrees of vowel height (minimum inventory i e a o u)
lack of lateral fricatives and affricates
two series of coronals
lack of a tone or register system
at least two of each of the following type of consonant: fricative, nasal, liquid, semivowel

I'm ashamed of my phonology

Your conlang is less European than German

* absence of phonemic opposition velar/uvular - (Bach vs. back, /baχ/ vs. /bak/)
* phonemic voicing oppositions (/p/ vs. /b/ etc.) as the only distinctions between sounds with the same POA and MOA
* initial consonant clusters of the type "stop+sonorant" allowed
* no initial velar nasal
* a wide variety of allowable clusters that, except for those that contain a sibilant and a stop, all adhere to the sonority hierarchy
* only pulmonic consonants
* no phonation or secondary articulation contrasts on vowels
* at least three degrees of vowel height (minimum inventory i e a o u) - (German has what, 4 or 5 or more? I'd say 7: [a] [æ] [e] [ɛ] [ə] [ɪ] [ʊ] [y] [ʏ] [o] [ø] if we count unstressed long and short vowels, too. )
* lack of lateral fricatives and affricates
* two series of coronals
* lack of a tone or register system
* at least two of each of the following type of consonant: fricative, nasal, liquid, semivowel - (/s/ /z/ /ʃ/ /m/ /n/ /ŋ/ /l/ /r/ /j/, only one semivowel)

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:04 pm**

Great, now I have to do this for all of my conlangs. Numbering them to make it easier: (blue = partially true)

1. absence of phonemic opposition velar/uvular - (Bach vs. back, /baχ/ vs. /bak/)
2. phonemic voicing oppositions (/p/ vs. /b/ etc.) as the only distinctions between sounds with the same POA and MOA
3. initial consonant clusters of the type "stop+sonorant" allowed
4. no initial velar nasal
5. a wide variety of allowable clusters that, except for those that contain a sibilant and a stop, all adhere to the sonority hierarchy
6. only pulmonic consonants
7. no phonation or secondary articulation contrasts on vowels
8. three degrees of vowel height (minimum inventory i e a o u)
9. lack of lateral fricatives and affricates
a. two series of coronals
b. lack of a tone or register system
c. at least two of each of the following type of consonant: fricative, nasal, liquid, semivowel

Kannow: --3---78-abc: 4+2
a: five coronal series
c: one fricative, five nasals, one liquid, one semivowel of limited distribution

Tharu: 1-3--6789-bc: 4+4
1: not phonemically, but velar+l clusters are realized as uvulars
8: vowel inventory /a e i 1 u/; could be analyzed as two or three degrees
b: stress accent
c: one semivowel

Enzielu: 1-3-56789abc: 7+4
5: stop+stop clusters allowed
8: vowel inventory /a E e i u/; could be analyzed as two or three degrees
a: four coronal series
c: one semivowel

Proto-Kett: 1-34-6789a-c: 8+1
a: four coronal series

Insular Kett: 1-34567-9abc: 7+3
4: loanwords only
a: weird shit, probably three series
b: stress accent

Continental Kett: 1-3--6789a-c: 8+0

Arve: -2---67-9abc: 1+6
2: aspiration
6: ejectives are marginal
7: in some dialects
9: in some dialects
a: three coronal series
b: stress accent

Total: (7 langs listed)

Code: Select all

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   a   b   c
4+1 0+1 6+0 1+1 1+1 6+1 6+1 2+3 5+1 1+4 2+3 4+3

So, not surprisingly, my langs tend to come out about as European as I want them to be.

Darkgamma wrote:* absence of phonemic opposition velar/uvular - (Bach vs. back, /baχ/ vs. /bak/)

No. It's [baχ], but /bax/. The allophones of that fricative never contrast.

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:22 pm**

Nortaneous wrote:
Darkgamma wrote:* absence of phonemic opposition velar/uvular - (Bach vs. back, /baχ/ vs. /bak/)
No. It's [baχ], but /bax/. The allophones of that fricative never contrast.

Truth, but it does quite seem that it's rather /baχ/ than /bax/ since /χ/ occurs in more forms (/x/ occurs with /a/ and /o/, /χ/ with all of the other vowels). Btw the underlyinɡ form of <ch> is actually /ç/, so it'd be more like /baç/ vs. /bak/, so it's contrasting palatals vs. velars, which is still (almost?) never seen in SAE.

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:00 pm**

Nortaneous wrote:
Darkgamma wrote:* absence of phonemic opposition velar/uvular - (Bach vs. back, /baχ/ vs. /bak/)
No. It's [baχ], but /bax/. The allophones of that fricative never contrast.

Guys, it doesn't matter. Contrasting a uvular fricative with a velar plosive does not necessarily make the POA distinction phonemic, so who cares? Not every phonetic feature of a word represents a phonemic distinction. You have to find a minimal pair where the manner of articulation is the same before you can talk about this seriously.

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:08 pm**

Inspiring. Props for the effort.

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:13 pm**

Ok, I'll do this, just for fun. Not about to change anything, though. Aeruyo phonology has had enough changes already.

absence of phonemic opposition velar/uvular
~~phonemic voicing oppositions (/p/ vs. /b/ etc.) as the only distinctions between sounds with the same POA and MOA~~ (Aeruyo used to have this, but I changed the plosive series to aspirated/unaspirated)
initial consonant clusters of the type "stop+sonorant" allowed (interestingly, this is accidental. I meant to make Aeruyo CV, but I accidentally made a couple words with [plosive]rV, and ended up keeping them)
no initial velar nasal(no velar nasal at all)
~~a wide variety of allowable clusters that, except for those that contain a sibilant and a stop, all adhere to the sonority hierarchy~~ (I only allow plosive + r, so this is a partial, maybe)
only pulmonic consonants
no phonation or secondary articulation contrasts on vowels
at least three degrees of vowel height (minimum inventory i e a o u) (I happen to like five-vowel systems)
lack of lateral fricatives and affricates
~~two series of coronals~~ (maybe a marginal. I contrast dental and alveolar, but it's only a single distinction between /s/ and /θ/)
lack of a tone or register system
at least two of each of the following type of consonant: fricative, nasal, liquid, semivowel (four fricatives, in fact)

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:53 pm**

Ancaron:
* absence of phonemic opposition velar/uvular
* phonemic voicing oppositions (/p/ vs. /b/ etc.) as the only distinctions between sounds with the same POA and MOA
* initial consonant clusters of the type "stop+sonorant" allowed (no initial clusters of any type allowed. These do appear allophonically though)
* no initial velar nasal (No velar nasal at all, except allophonically)
* a wide variety of allowable clusters that, except for those that contain a sibilant and a stop, all adhere to the sonority hierarchy (Inter syllabic clusters can be anything)
* only pulmonic consonants
* no phonation or secondary articulation contrasts on vowels
* at least three degrees of vowel height (minimum inventory i e a o u)
* lack of lateral fricatives and affricates
* two series of coronals
* lack of a tone or register system
* at least two of each of the following type of consonant: fricative, nasal, liquid, semivowel (no semivowels. Is /r/ a liquid? If it is, there's two)

Myonian
* absence of phonemic opposition velar/uvular
* phonemic voicing oppositions (/p/ vs. /b/ etc.) as the only distinctions between sounds with the same POA and MOA
* initial consonant clusters of the type "stop+sonorant" allowed
* no initial velar nasal
* a wide variety of allowable clusters that, except for those that contain a sibilant and a stop, all adhere to the sonority hierarchy
* only pulmonic consonants
* no phonation or secondary articulation contrasts on vowels
* at least three degrees of vowel height (minimum inventory i e a o u)
* lack of lateral fricatives and affricates
* two series of coronals (3, actually. Does that count as different?)
* lack of a tone or register system (Pitch accent system, I think that counts)
* at least two of each of the following type of consonant: fricative, nasal, liquid, semivowel

What did you expect? It's a Germanic lang.

Zukish
* absence of phonemic opposition velar/uvular
* phonemic voicing oppositions (/p/ vs. /b/ etc.) as the only distinctions between sounds with the same POA and MOA
* initial consonant clusters of the type "stop+sonorant" allowed
* no initial velar nasal (again, no velar nasal at all.)
* a wide variety of allowable clusters that, except for those that contain a sibilant and a stop, all adhere to the sonority hierarchy (Nope, they can get weird. /lj/ /ml/ /znθ/ anyone?)
* only pulmonic consonants
* no phonation or secondary articulation contrasts on vowels
* at least three degrees of vowel height (minimum inventory i e a o u)
* lack of lateral fricatives and affricates
* two series of coronals
* lack of a tone or register system
* at least two of each of the following type of consonant: fricative, nasal, liquid, semivowel

Zukish is more European than Myonian?

Zceikca (Not an in progress language, but it's weird. And related to Zukish)
* absence of phonemic opposition velar/uvular
* phonemic voicing oppositions (/p/ vs. /b/ etc.) as the only distinctions between sounds with the same POA and MOA (Unless ejectives count, also only in plosives)
* initial consonant clusters of the type "stop+sonorant" allowed (No initial clusters)
* no initial velar nasal (initial velar [and uvular] nasals exist)
* a wide variety of allowable clusters that, except for those that contain a sibilant and a stop, all adhere to the sonority hierarchy (Inter syllabic clusters can be anything again)
* only pulmonic consonants (ejectives!)
* no phonation or secondary articulation contrasts on vowels
* at least three degrees of vowel height (minimum inventory i e a o u)
* lack of lateral fricatives and affricates
* two series of coronals
* lack of a tone or register system
* at least two of each of the following type of consonant: fricative, nasal, liquid, semivowel (No semivowels. /l/ and /ʟ/ for the liquids...)

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:33 pm**

Baranxe'i:
absence of phonemic opposition velar/uvular
phonemic voicing oppositions (/p/ vs. /b/ etc.) as the only distinctions between sounds with the same POA and MOA
initial consonant clusters of the type "stop+sonorant" allowed (exist marginally in two roots, draim-, prit-, and clusters from earlier stop+sonorant)
no initial velar nasal
a wide variety of allowable clusters that, except for those that contain a sibilant and a stop, all adhere to the sonority hierarchy (no initital p/t/b/d/g+sibilant stops, only [kʃ]-; also initial /xp, xt, xk/)
only pulmonic consonants
no phonation or secondary articulation contrasts on vowels
at least three degrees of vowel height (minimum inventory i e a o u) (four degrees)
lack of lateral fricatives and affricates
two series of coronals (well, three-way distinction in fricatives, but only one POA of stops)
lack of a tone or register system
at least two of each of the following type of consonant: fricative, nasal, liquid, semivowel ([w] only occurs in some dialects as an allophone of /β/)

Asuāneica:
absence of phonemic opposition velar/uvular (/ʁ/ contrasts with /ɣ/, and /ʔ/ from earlier /q/ is phonemic)
phonemic voicing oppositions (/p/ vs. /b/ etc.) as the only distinctions between sounds with the same POA and MOA (labialisation has become phonemic)
initial consonant clusters of the type "stop+sonorant" allowed (again, marginal in a few roots)
no initial velar nasal
a wide variety of allowable clusters that, except for those that contain a sibilant and a stop, all adhere to the sonority hierarchy
only pulmonic consonants
no phonation or secondary articulation contrasts on vowels (most dialects have a distinction of plain v. rhotic vowels due to partial loss of /ɻ/)
at least three degrees of vowel height (minimum inventory i e a o u) (four degrees)
lack of lateral fricatives and affricates
two series of coronals (dental-retroflex distinction in stops, dental-alveolar-retroflex distinction in fricatives)
lack of a tone or register system
at least two of each of the following type of consonant: fricative, nasal, liquid, semivowel (has /ɻ ɣ ʁ/, but phonotactically, /ɣ ʁ/ mostly pattern as fricatives with /ʁ/ in a transition stage; but there's no /l/)

Proto-Aketamsei: (i.e., the ancestor of the other two)
absence of phonemic opposition velar/uvular (full opposition of a velar and a uvular series)
phonemic voicing oppositions (/p/ vs. /b/ etc.) as the only distinctions between sounds with the same POA and MOA (voicing, palatalisation and aspirated/breathy)
initial consonant clusters of the type "stop+sonorant" allowed
no initial velar nasal
a wide variety of allowable clusters that, except for those that contain a sibilant and a stop, all adhere to the sonority hierarchy
only pulmonic consonants
no phonation or secondary articulation contrasts on vowels (most dialects have a distinction of plain v. rhotic vowels due to partial loss of /ɻ/)
at least three degrees of vowel height (minimum inventory i e a o u)
lack of lateral fricatives and affricates
two series of coronals (dental v. alveolar)
lack of a tone or register system
at least two of each of the following type of consonant: fricative, nasal, liquid, semivowel (no fricatives)

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2011 8:23 pm**

Nortaneous wrote:Great, now I have to do this for all of my conlangs.

me too.

Standard Sentalian:
1. absence of phonemic opposition velar/uvular
2. phonemic voicing oppositions (/p/ vs. /b/ etc.) as the only distinctions between sounds with the same POA and MOA (Ejective plosives)
3. initial consonant clusters of the type "stop+sonorant" allowed
4. no initial velar nasal
5. a wide variety of allowable clusters that, except for those that contain a sibilant and a stop, all adhere to the sonority hierarchy Coda clusters don't adhere to the sonority hierarchy.
6. only pulmonic consonants Ejective plosives.
7. no phonation or secondary articulation contrasts on vowels
8. three degrees of vowel height (minimum inventory i e a o u) Four degrees of vowel height.
9. lack of lateral fricatives and affricates Allophonic for some /tl/ clusters.
a. two series of coronals has /ɕ/ but not a whole series of coronals.
b. lack of a tone or register system
c. at least two of each of the following type of consonant: fricative, nasal, liquid, semivowel It has /ʋ l j w/ as its approximants – which count as liquids and which as semivowels. It doesn't have an R/L distinction, which should really be an item on this list.

Kanteian
1. absence of phonemic opposition velar/uvular There is a palatal/uvular contrast in fricatives – it should probably be 'analysed' as palatal/velar, however, at least diachronically.
2. phonemic voicing oppositions (/p/ vs. /b/ etc.) as the only distinctions between sounds with the same POA and MOA
3. initial consonant clusters of the type "stop+sonorant" allowed Heterorganic only.
4. no initial velar nasal
5. a wide variety of allowable clusters that, except for those that contain a sibilant and a stop, all adhere to the sonority hierarchy Except no sibilant+stop clusters.
6. only pulmonic consonants
7. no phonation or secondary articulation contrasts on vowels
8. three degrees of vowel height (minimum inventory i e a o u)
9. lack of lateral fricatives and affricates
a. two series of coronals
b. lack of a tone or register system
c. at least two of each of the following type of consonant: fricative, nasal, liquid, semivowel

Rempocian:
1. absence of phonemic opposition velar/uvular
2. phonemic voicing oppositions (/p/ vs. /b/ etc.) as the only distinctions between sounds with the same POA and MOA voiceless, voiced, aspirated contrast.
3. initial consonant clusters of the type "stop+sonorant" allowed
4. no initial velar nasal
5. a wide variety of allowable clusters that, except for those that contain a sibilant and a stop, all adhere to the sonority hierarchy
6. only pulmonic consonants
7. no phonation or secondary articulation contrasts on vowels
8. three degrees of vowel height (minimum inventory i e a o u) three degrees in short vowels, four in long vowels.
9. lack of lateral fricatives and affricates Allophonic in some /tl/ clusters.
a. two series of coronals One series plus /ʃ/.
b. lack of a tone or register system
c. at least two of each of the following type of consonant: fricative, nasal, liquid, semivowel Has R/L contrast, but has no W, similarly to German.

Vidoan:
1. absence of phonemic opposition velar/uvular
2. phonemic voicing oppositions (/p/ vs. /b/ etc.) as the only distinctions between sounds with the same POA and MOA unaspirated/aspirated contrast.
3. initial consonant clusters of the type "stop+sonorant" allowed
4. no initial velar nasal
5. a wide variety of allowable clusters that, except for those that contain a sibilant and a stop, all adhere to the sonority hierarchy No consonant cluster allowed initially/finally.
6. only pulmonic consonants
7. no phonation or secondary articulation contrasts on vowels
8. three degrees of vowel height (minimum inventory i e a o u)
9. lack of lateral fricatives and affricates
a. two series of coronals One series plus /ʃ/.
b. lack of a tone or register system
c. at least two of each of the following type of consonant: fricative, nasal, liquid, semivowel

Facurian:
1. absence of phonemic opposition velar/uvular
2. phonemic voicing oppositions (/p/ vs. /b/ etc.) as the only distinctions between sounds with the same POA and MOA
3. initial consonant clusters of the type "stop+sonorant" allowed
4. no initial velar nasal
5. a wide variety of allowable clusters that, except for those that contain a sibilant and a stop, all adhere to the sonority hierarchy Not fully worked out consonant cluster restrictions yet.
6. only pulmonic consonants
7. no phonation or secondary articulation contrasts on vowels
8. three degrees of vowel height (minimum inventory i e a o u) Shows a similar mid-vowel merger to Mybutan and Dotolian but handles it differently, so that I would say it still has four vowel heights but /e ɛ/ and /o ɔ/ can be considered "long"/"short" pairs sometimes.
9. lack of lateral fricatives and affricates Not sure, might retain those from standard Sentalian.
a. two series of coronals one series plus /ɕ/ again.
b. lack of a tone or register system
c. at least two of each of the following type of consonant: fricative, nasal, liquid, semivowel

Mybutan:
1. absence of phonemic opposition velar/uvular
2. phonemic voicing oppositions (/p/ vs. /b/ etc.) as the only distinctions between sounds with the same POA and MOA Ejectives
3. initial consonant clusters of the type "stop+sonorant" allowed
4. no initial velar nasal
5. a wide variety of allowable clusters that, except for those that contain a sibilant and a stop, all adhere to the sonority hierarchy Not fully worked out consonant cluster restrictions yet. Mybutan and Facurian are schwa-dropping dialects, which means that they allow more clusters than other dialects.
6. only pulmonic consonants
7. no phonation or secondary articulation contrasts on vowels
8. three degrees of vowel height (minimum inventory i e a o u) /eː ɛ/ and /oː ɔ/ pairs on mid vowels as result of a merger.
9. lack of lateral fricatives and affricates
a. two series of coronals /tʃ dʒ/ gained from various sources including the lateral affricates in standard Sentalian.
b. lack of a tone or register system
c. at least two of each of the following type of consonant: fricative, nasal, liquid, semivowel No /ʋ/ or /j/ from standard Sentalian; only approximants are /l w/.

Dotolian:
1. absence of phonemic opposition velar/uvular
2. phonemic voicing oppositions (/p/ vs. /b/ etc.) as the only distinctions between sounds with the same POA and MOA
3. initial consonant clusters of the type "stop+sonorant" allowed
4. no initial velar nasal
5. a wide variety of allowable clusters that, except for those that contain a sibilant and a stop, all adhere to the sonority hierarchy no sibilant+stop clusters, some coda clusters that don't adhere.
6. only pulmonic consonants
7. no phonation or secondary articulation contrasts on vowels
8. three degrees of vowel height (minimum inventory i e a o u)
9. lack of lateral fricatives and affricates
a. two series of coronals
b. lack of a tone or register system
c. at least two of each of the following type of consonant: fricative, nasal, liquid, semivowel

OH, and those are all varieties of the same system. I've still got three unrelated conlangs:

Panceor:
1. absence of phonemic opposition velar/uvular
2. phonemic voicing oppositions (/p/ vs. /b/ etc.) as the only distinctions between sounds with the same POA and MOA No phonemic voicing oppositions.
3. initial consonant clusters of the type "stop+sonorant" allowed Cl and Cr along with rC and lC are allowed.
4. no initial velar nasal
5. a wide variety of allowable clusters that, except for those that contain a sibilant and a stop, all adhere to the sonority hierarchy It's not a "wide" variety, but /st/ is a valid cluster anywhere (and arguably patterns like a plosive in many places; it also has one grapheme <c>, at least in the romanization).
6. only pulmonic consonants
7. no phonation or secondary articulation contrasts on vowels
8. three degrees of vowel height (minimum inventory i e a o u)
9. lack of lateral fricatives and affricates
a. two series of coronals (I've analysed it with dental /t n l/ and alveolar /ts s r/)
b. lack of a tone or register system
c. at least two of each of the following type of consonant: fricative, nasal, liquid, semivowel The two fricatives are /v s/, and I've been thinking of changing /v/ to /ʋ/ just to be screwy (but this would kinda be imitating Sentalian to a degree); this would then violate the constraint.

Umpát:
1. absence of phonemic opposition velar/uvular
2. phonemic voicing oppositions (/p/ vs. /b/ etc.) as the only distinctions between sounds with the same POA and MOA No phonemic voicing oppositions.
3. initial consonant clusters of the type "stop+sonorant" allowed
4. no initial velar nasal
5. a wide variety of allowable clusters that, except for those that contain a sibilant and a stop, all adhere to the sonority hierarchy
6. only pulmonic consonants
7. no phonation or secondary articulation contrasts on vowels
8. three degrees of vowel height (minimum inventory i e a o u) /a i u/
9. lack of lateral fricatives and affricates
a. two series of coronals
b. lack of a tone or register system
c. at least two of each of the following type of consonant: fricative, nasal, liquid, semivowel One fricative, two nasals, one liquid, no semivowels; however, stops fricativise in the coda, so in the coda there are 3 fricatives.

Yaufulti (Western):
1. absence of phonemic opposition velar/uvular
2. phonemic voicing oppositions (/p/ vs. /b/ etc.) as the only distinctions between sounds with the same POA and MOA Usually no phonemic voicing contrast but some situations could arise due to consonant harmony.
3. initial consonant clusters of the type "stop+sonorant" allowed
4. no initial velar nasal
5. a wide variety of allowable clusters that, except for those that contain a sibilant and a stop, all adhere to the sonority hierarchy No clusters.
6. only pulmonic consonants
7. no phonation or secondary articulation contrasts on vowels
8. three degrees of vowel height (minimum inventory i e a o u) /i u ɛ ɑ/
9. lack of lateral fricatives and affricates Allophonic/due to consonant harmony.
a. two series of coronals ????
b. lack of a tone or register system
c. at least two of each of the following type of consonant: fricative, nasal, liquid, semivowel 4/1/1/1

Yaufulti (Eastern):
1. absence of phonemic opposition velar/uvular
2. phonemic voicing oppositions (/p/ vs. /b/ etc.) as the only distinctions between sounds with the same POA and MOA Contrast between /x ɣ/.
3. initial consonant clusters of the type "stop+sonorant" allowed
4. no initial velar nasal
5. a wide variety of allowable clusters that, except for those that contain a sibilant and a stop, all adhere to the sonority hierarchy No clusters.
6. only pulmonic consonants
7. no phonation or secondary articulation contrasts on vowels
8. three degrees of vowel height (minimum inventory i e a o u) /i u æ ɑ/
9. lack of lateral fricatives and affricates Allophonic/due to consonant harmony.
a. two series of coronals ????
b. lack of a tone or register system
c. at least two of each of the following type of consonant: fricative, nasal, liquid, semivowel No nasals.

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2011 8:30 pm**

Darkgamma wrote:Truth, but it does quite seem that it's rather /baχ/ than /bax/ since /χ/ occurs in more forms (/x/ occurs with /a/ and /o/, /χ/ with all of the other vowels). Btw the underlyinɡ form of <ch> is actually /ç/

Technically, yes, but I call it /x/ because that's easier to type.

so it's contrasting palatals vs. velars, which is still (almost?) never seen in SAE.

English: pair, tear, chair, care

Although in most SAE langs, both nat and con, the 'palatal' series usually consists of postalveolar sibilants.

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2011 8:40 pm**

Dammit.

absence of phonemic opposition velar/uvular
phonemic voicing oppositions (/p/ vs. /b/ etc.) as the only distinctions between sounds with the same PoA and MoA
initial consonant clusters of the type "stop+sonorant" allowed (yes, but very limited: /p k q/ + /ɾ/ are the only permitted onset clusters)
no initial velar nasal (no velar nasals except allophonically)
a wide variety of allowable clusters that, except for those that contain a sibilant and a stop, all adhere to the sonority hierarchy (sorta, but for the most part the only clusters are intervocalic CC or CTɾ clusters, where T is a stop, and these cannot violate the sonority hierarchy by their nature...)
only pulmonic consonants (ejectives!)
no phonation or secondary articulation contrasts on vowels
three degrees of vowel height (minimum inventory i e a o u) (anywhere from two to four degrees of vowel height, depending on how you analyze it. But the inventory is ~/i o ɛ a/, so it is smaller than that minimum inventory.)
lack of lateral fricatives and affricates
two series of coronals (four series, actually!)
lack of a tone or register system
at least two of each of the following type of consonant: fricative, nasal, liquid, semivowel (it is kind of questionable if I should consider /ɾ/ a liquid, considering its phonotactic constraints...)

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2011 8:46 pm**

Kinál:
1. absence of phonemic opposition velar/uvular
2. phonemic voicing oppositions (/p/ vs. /b/ etc.) as the only distinctions between sounds with the same POA and MOA - Kinál distinguishes between only ejective and unvoiced.
3. initial consonant clusters of the type "stop+sonorant" allowed
4. no initial velar nasal - velar nasal can appear in any position
5. a wide variety of allowable clusters that, except for those that contain a sibilant and a stop, all adhere to the sonority hierarchy - Ki. allows tons of different consonant clusters, however, they don't tend to appear this way because of the language's structure.
6. only pulmonic consonants - ejective stops and an ejective affricate
7. no phonation or secondary articulation contrasts on vowels
8. three degrees of vowel height (minimum inventory i e a o u)
9. lack of lateral fricatives and affricates - phonology includes an alveolar lateral fricative and a rare allophone of it, a velar lateral fricative
a. two series of coronals
b. lack of a tone or register system
c. at least two of each of the following type of consonant: fricative, nasal, liquid, semivowel - 3 fricatives, 2 nasals, liquids are absent, semivowels (/w/ and /j/) are rare and only occur after some vowels

I think it's safe to say that my conlang is quite un-SAE

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:08 pm**

Sorry for the spammies, I think it is necessary.

(green = true, red = false, blue = partly yes, partly no)
Poswa:
1. absence of phonemic opposition velar/uvular - (Bach vs. back, /baχ/ vs. /bak/)
2. phonemic voicing oppositions (/p/ vs. /b/ etc.) as the only distinctions between sounds with the same POA and MOA
3. initial consonant clusters of the type "stop+sonorant" allowed
4. no initial velar nasal
5. a wide variety of allowable clusters that, except for those that contain a sibilant and a stop, all adhere to the sonority hierarchy
6. only pulmonic consonants
7. no phonation or secondary articulation contrasts on vowels
8. three degrees of vowel height (minimum inventory i e a o u)
9. lack of lateral fricatives and affricates
a. two series of coronals
b. lack of a tone or register system
c. at least two of each of the following type of consonant: fricative, nasal, liquid, semivowel

Poswa is 100% SAE.

Pabappa:
1. absence of phonemic opposition velar/uvular - (Bach vs. back, /baχ/ vs. /bak/)
2. phonemic voicing oppositions (/p/ vs. /b/ etc.) as the only distinctions between sounds with the same POA and MOA
3. initial consonant clusters of the type "stop+sonorant" allowed (this is just barely true ... one sequence, /bl/, makes up more than half of the word-initial consonant clusters)
4. no initial velar nasal
5. a wide variety of allowable clusters that, except for those that contain a sibilant and a stop, all adhere to the sonority hierarchy True but they are rare.
6. only pulmonic consonants
7. no phonation or secondary articulation contrasts on vowels
8. three degrees of vowel height (minimum inventory i e a o u)
9. lack of lateral fricatives and affricates
a. two series of coronals
b. lack of a tone or register system
c. at least two of each of the following type of consonant: fricative, nasal, liquid, semivowel
So Pabappa is still pretty close.

Kuroras:
1. absence of phonemic opposition velar/uvular - (Bach vs. back, /baχ/ vs. /bak/)
2. phonemic voicing oppositions (/p/ vs. /b/ etc.) as the only distinctions between sounds with the same POA and MOA There is a three way distinction between kʰ/k/g etc, but the voiced stops are quite rare
3. initial consonant clusters of the type "stop+sonorant" allowed Initial clusters of all types are rare
4. no initial velar nasal
5. a wide variety of allowable clusters that, except for those that contain a sibilant and a stop, all adhere to the sonority hierarchy
6. only pulmonic consonants
7. no phonation or secondary articulation contrasts on vowelsHas phrayngealized vowels.
8. three degrees of vowel height (minimum inventory i e a o u)
9. lack of lateral fricatives and affricates
a. two series of coronals
b. lack of a tone or register systemThere are four tones.
c. at least two of each of the following type of consonant: fricative, nasal, liquid, semivowel
So about 50-60% depending on how you weigh the blues.

Andanese: (a language with an extremely minimal phonology whose historical homeland is only a few miles away from Pabappa's, but which died out 4000 years ago)
1. absence of phonemic opposition velar/uvular - (Bach vs. back, /baχ/ vs. /bak/)
2. phonemic voicing oppositions (/p/ vs. /b/ etc.) as the only distinctions between sounds with the same POA and MOANo, only because there are no distincitons. There are only nine consonants and three vowels.
3. initial consonant clusters of the type "stop+sonorant" allowedNo clusters.
4. no initial velar nasal
5. a wide variety of allowable clusters that, except for those that contain a sibilant and a stop, all adhere to the sonority hierarchy
6. only pulmonic consonants
7. no phonation or secondary articulation contrasts on vowels
8. three degrees of vowel height (minimum inventory i e a o u)
9. lack of lateral fricatives and affricates
a. two series of coronals
b. lack of a tone or register system
c. at least two of each of the following type of consonant: fricative, nasal, liquid, semivowel
Also 50.

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:30 pm**

Theta wrote:Well I've read in a couple places that it's not truly a back vowel and is actually more central.

It depends on the dialect. For me it's fully back [V], not [3].

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:41 pm**

TaylorS wrote:
Theta wrote:Well I've read in a couple places that it's not truly a back vowel and is actually more central.
It depends on the dialect. For me it's fully back [V], not [3].

[3]? What are you talking about? That's the rhotic vowel in British English, and nothing in American English. Maybe you mean to say your idiolect has [V] instead of [6]?

Posted: **Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:26 pm**

Since I'm too tired to write the next post tonight, I guess I can do this for my temporarily shelved conlangs also...

Gadaye: 12-4-6-8-ab-: 6+1
4: no phonemic nasals, but [N] appears as an allophone of /g/ before nasal vowels

Hathe: 1--4-6-89a--: 4+2
6: are glottal stops counted as pulmonic?
a: contrast between /s D/, but that can be analyzed as a voice contrast

Kanagy: 1--4-6--9ab-: 5+1
4: no phonemic nasals, but [N_j] appears as an allophone of /g_j/ before nasal vowels

Ketas: ---4-6--9-b-: 3+1
6: as in Hathe

Kastas: 12---67---b-: 4+1
2: only such distinction is /s z/

Tnerakhii (name subject to change): -------89a--: 2+1
a: three series

Damn, now I want to change Tnerakhii to not fill any of them.

All I'd have to do is add another two vowels and a lateral fricative, but it already has clicks, epiglottals, creaky and breathy voice, and 8 POAs, so...

zompist bboard

How to design a non-European phonology

Re: How to design a non-European phonology

Re: How to design a non-European phonology

Re: How to design a non-European phonology

Re: How to design a non-European phonology

Re: How to design a non-European phonology

Re: How to design a non-European phonology

Re: How to design a non-European phonology

Re: How to design a non-European phonology

Re: How to design a non-European phonology

Re: How to design a non-European phonology

Re: How to design a non-European phonology

Re: How to design a non-European phonology

Re: How to design a non-European phonology

Re: How to design a non-European phonology

Re: How to design a non-European phonology

Re: How to design a non-European phonology

Re: How to design a non-European phonology

Re: How to design a non-European phonology

Re: How to design a non-European phonology

Re: How to design a non-European phonology

Re: How to design a non-European phonology

Re: How to design a non-European phonology

Re: How to design a non-European phonology

Re: How to design a non-European phonology

Re: How to design a non-European phonology