Post your conlang's phonology

[Izambri]

Sate (Peran's mother tongue)

Consonants
Satic consonants are organized in series of two phonemes. Where sounds appear in pairs, the one to the left represents the most common phoneme, while the one to the right is considered its less common counterpart. The orthographic representation (bold letters in this list) shows two ways of representing the written language: uppercase are the romanizations of the syllabary's symbols, while lowercase are also romanizations, these used to represent each variation of the series. So, for example, a word like MARU (MA + RU) could be [maɾu] or [maʙu] (in this case is the second one, so is written malu for practical purposes).

N M - n m /n m/
R - r l /ɾ ʙ/
S Z - s ts /s ts/
P - p ph /p pɸ/
T D - t th /t tθ/
K - k /k kx/

Vowels
Basic: a i u /a i u/

___________________________

Middle Peran

Consonants
nb n ng /m n ŋ/
nb t k /p t k/
b d g /b d g/
r l ll /ɾ ɫ ɫ:/
f s ts /f s ts/
i u /j w/ (intervocalic allophones)

Vowels
Basic: a i u /a i u/, maybe [ä: ɪ: ʊ:] in tonic positions.
Innovations: e o /e o/, maybe [ɛ: ɔ:] in tonic positions.
Relaxed: a [ɐ] and e [ə ɜ], possibly in atonic positions.

[SHiNKiROU]

For a sketch language



5 tones: ˨ ˦ ˩˥ ˥˩ ˧˦˧

A fun way to max out a phonology without the uvular and ejective consonants.
yes, I've tried to pronounce them

[Culden]

Here's what I'm playing with at the moment:

Plosives: p, t, k
Nasals: m, n, J, N
Fricatives: s, S, x, h
Approximants: l, r\, j, w

Vowels: i, u, a

I haven't come up with a name for the language, but I'm going to try this out with extensive allophony. I might also fill out the palatals more, or have some palatalized phonemes (t and l especially... others are too hard for me to say, even with practice, and I need to be able to pronounce this eventually)

[----]

Here's a new sketch I've done:

Nasals: /m n ɲ/
Plosives: /p pʰ t tʰ c cʰ k kʰ (ʔ)/
Fricatives: /ɸ s ç h/
Approximants: /r l j w (ɰ)/

Vowels: /i e ɛ a o ɔ u ə~ɤ~ɯ/

All vowels have phonemic length. /ɰ/ only appears before /ə/ and /a/ as a glide when no initial consonant is present; /j/ appears before /i e ɛ/ and /w/ before /o ɔ u/ in the same environment. /ʔ/ only appears at the end of words when no coda is present. Therefore, syllable structure is strictly CVC. Palatal stops in the coda arise as a sequence of /j/+alveolar equivalent.

[Ouagadougou]

First ZBB post! (I've worked up the nerve to stop lurking around...)

Gamman
Vowels:
i ɯ ɛ ʌ a
Consonants:
Nasals: m n ŋ m͡ɴ ɴ͡ʐ ɴ͡ð
Fricatives: β v ð z ʒ ɣ
Approximants: ʋ ɹ j l

There are also two which I don't know how to represent in IPA
"lh" - sort of flicking the tongue off of the bottom teeth until it extends to the outer edge of the lip
"lr" - drawing the tongue backawards in a smooth, continuous motion along the roof of the mouth, beginning with it touching the upper lip until reaching the palatal position.

Strict CV structure, but the first syllable can lack a consonant onset.

[Eyowa]

Welcome to the board! Have some pickles and tea!

I like your vowel system. Why no rounded vowels?

Your <lh> sounds like it might be a linguolabial flap /ɾ̼/ or something. Someone more skilled in phonetics might have a better name for it, though. No clue about <lr>.

I'm not sure if the coarticulated nasals would work. If the airstream is blocked at the uvula, it seems like it wouldn't be possible to pronounce /m/, /ʐ/ or /ð/. I can't, anyway. You sure those aren't just clusters?

-----

Here's the phonology for my latest lang. It's supposed to feel sort of Celtic.

Consonants:
Stops: /p b t̪ d k g/
Fricatives: /ɸ β_b β_m β f v θ ð_d ð s x ɣ_g ɣ h/ (the subscripts indicate how the sound changes when affected by sandhi)
Nasals: /m n ŋ/
Flaps: /ɾ ɾ̥/
Approximants: /w ʍ l l̥~ɬ j/

Vowels:
Close: /i iː ɪ ʏː u u̹ː/
Mid: /ɛ eː o o̹ː/
Open: /a ɑː/
Diphthongs: /aɪ̯ eɪ̯ aʊ̯ əɪ̯ eu̯ iu̯ ou̯ u̯i u̯ɪ/

Allophony:
/k/ [c] _{i, e}
/ɾ/ [ɹ] _[+alveolar+stop]
/x/ [c͡ɕ] {i, e}_#
x and ɣ are pharyngealized after /o ɑː/
/o/ [ɑ] _[+fricative –voiced]
/ɪ/ [ə] in unstressed syllables before the primary stress

[Ouagadougou]

I like your vowel system. Why no rounded vowels?

Your <lh> sounds like it might be a linguolabial flap /ɾ̼/ or something. Someone more skilled in phonetics might have a better name for it, though. No clue about <lr>.

I'm not sure if the coarticulated nasals would work. If the airstream is blocked at the uvula, it seems like it wouldn't be possible to pronounce /m/, /ʐ/ or /ð/. I can't, anyway. You sure those aren't just clusters?

Thanks for the refreshments and advice!

The vowels are admittedly in a state of disarray flux, but I decided that Standard Gamman with /u/ and /o/ was a bit too owlish, and that I just liked the unrounded system better. (However, ʋ followed by a vowel will become w followed by a rounded vowel in the speech of scientists, to avoid confusion with β)

The coarticulated nasals are actually goofed; they should be coarticulated with ŋ, not ɴ, which I had meant to remove entirely from the nasal set. As for pronounceability, you caught me! The Gammans differ from humans in having multiple passages between the nose, mouth, and throat, allowing such sounds (a wider range is used by other Gamman tongues) to be pronounced. It is most convenient for humans to pronounce them as a nasalized vowel followed by the consonant of choice.

I also have a script for it, but I haven't the foggiest idea of where such things are placed.

[WeepingElf]

First ZBB post! (I've worked up the nerve to stop lurking around...)

Gamman
Vowels:
i ɯ ɛ ʌ a
Consonants:
Nasals: m n ŋ m͡ɴ ɴ͡ʐ ɴ͡ð
Fricatives: β v ð z ʒ ɣ
Approximants: ʋ ɹ j l

There are also two which I don't know how to represent in IPA
"lh" - sort of flicking the tongue off of the bottom teeth until it extends to the outer edge of the lip
"lr" - drawing the tongue backawards in a smooth, continuous motion along the roof of the mouth, beginning with it touching the upper lip until reaching the palatal position.

Strict CV structure, but the first syllable can lack a consonant onset.

You should be aware that this phoneme inventory is outright bizarre. That doesn't mean that it is bad, but you should know what you are doing. No stops, no rounded vowels, no voiceless fricatives - and two phonemes that may be entirely without natlang precedent: that is highly creative, but does not resemble any real human language.

[Ouagadougou]

@WeepingElf:
Yes, that was fully intentional; I decided against stops and affricates because I felt they would interrupt the continuous drone of Standard Gamman.
EDIT:
As for voicelessness, it also seemed to detract from the overall "feel" of SG. I wanted a sort of mix between insect-like buzzing and pythonesque chanting.

[äreo]

Just started dickin' around with this Akkadian + Athabaskan mix:
/b t tˤ d k g q qʷ ʔ/ <b t t' d k g q qw '>
/ts tʃ tʃʷ/ <ts tx txw>
/m n/ <m n>
/s sˤ z ʃ ʃʷ x ʜ ʜʷ/ <s s' z x xw h c cw>*
/r l w j/ <r l w j>
/a i u a: e: i: u: aw aj/ <a i u aa ee ii uu ai au>

allophony:
-/tˤ sˤ/ (the emphatic consonants) may be pharyngealized (as transcribed) and/or velarized, or even ejectives.
-/a a: e: u: aw aj/ are usually [ä ɑ: ɛ: æw ɛj], except near uvular or epiglottal consonants: [ɒ ɒ: a: ɑo̯ ɑe̯]
-/r/ is a flap intervocalically and a trill elsewhere.
-final /l/ is [w] in some varieties.
-/g/ can be [ɣ] between vowels and is often [ŋ] finally.

phonotactics:
-/w j/ do not end syllables except in the diphthongs /aj aw/.
-consonant clusters only happen medially, at syllable boundaries.
-any of the consonants except /ʔ/ may be geminate medially.
-the glottal stop only occurs medially.

*Yes, <c> for an epiglottal. Deal with it.

[Nortaneous]

A very atypical, but still plausible, inventory, inspired by this post:

Code: Select all

p  t̼  ts  tʲ  k̟  k̠  ʡ  ʔ     p ŧ ƾ t k q c ʔ
ɓ         ɗʲ  ɠ̟              b     d g
   θ̼  s   sʲ  x̟     ʜ  h       ƶ z s x   ḫ h
   ð̼  z                        đ ƻ 
   l̼      lʲ  j                ł   l j

i̘ ɪ ʊ u̘   ĩ ũ                ɿ i u ʮ   į ų
e̘  ə  o̘   ẽ õ                e  ə  o   ę ǫ 
   a       ã                    a       ą

 ǀʰ  ǃʰ  ǁʰ  ǂʰ               ǀ  ǃ  ǁ  ǂ
ŋǀˀ ŋǃˀ ŋǁˀ ŋǂˀ              ǀn ǃn ǁn ǂn

After nasal vowels, /ɓ ð̼ z ɗʲ ɠ̟/ are realized as [m n̼ n nʲ ŋ̟], voiceless nonradical consonants are realized as voiced prenasalized stops, and aspirated and glottalized clicks are realized as, respectively, voiceless and voiced nasal clicks.

/i̘/ is realized as [z̩] after alveolar consonants and [z̩ʲ] after palatalized consonants. /u̘/ is realized as [vʷ] after bilabial consonants and [ɣ̟ʷ] or [ɣ̠ʷ] after prevelar and postvelar consonants.

Syllable structure is (C)(C)VC, but word-final consonants take an epenthetic [ə] unless followed in the same phrase by a vowel in the next word, and only a few clusters are allowed:

ʜ + any click (realized as pharyngealized click)
ʔ h + any plosive/fricative
approximant + plosive, unless the two are at different coronal POAs

I'm not going to use this. Might be fun to see if anyone can come up with a better orthography for it.

[TaylorS]

Kanussetian:

Plosives: /p t ʧ k/ p t c k
Affricates: /tɬ/ tl
Nasals: /m n ŋ/ m n g
Fricatives: /ɸ s ʃ h/ f s z h
Approximants: /w j l/ w y l
Trill: /r/ r

Short Vowels: /a ɛ i ɔ u/
Long Vowels: /aː eː iː oː uː/
Diphthongs: /ai̯ au̯ eu̯ oi̯/

Allowed Clusters

Code: Select all

Initial
   y  w
p py    pr
t ty tw
c    cw cr
k    kw kr
tl
m my    mr ml
n ny nw nr nl
g gy gw gr gl
f fy    fr fl
s    sw sr
z    zw zr
h hy hw hr hl
r ry rw
l ly lw

medial
      y      w
p pp py ppy        pr ppr
t tt ty tty tw ttw tr ttr
c cc        cw     cr
k kk        kw kkw kr kkr
tl ttl
m mm my mmy        mr mmr ml mml
n nn ny nny nw nnw nr nnr nl 
g gg gy ggy gw ggw gr ggr gl ggl
f    fy            fr     fl
s ss        sw ssw sr ssr
z zz        zw     zr
h    hy            hr     hl
r rr ry rry rw rrw
l ll ly lly lw llw

Final
no clusters allowed
all singgle consonants except /h/

-------------------

Stress occurs on the penultimate syllable if the ultimate syllable is open.
Stress occurs on the ultimate syllable if the ultimate syllable is closed..

-------------------

All non-gemminated plosives and fricatives are voiced intervocalically.

/tɬ/ becomes [ɬ] intervocalically

/m n ŋ/ are realized as prenasalized plosives in the onset of stressed syllables

/h/ and /f/ do not contrast before /u/

/a ɛ au̯ ai̯ eu̯/ become [æ e ɛu̯ ɛi̯ iu̯] after /j ʧ ʃ/

/a ɔ au̯ ai̯ oi̯/ become [ɒ o ɔu̯ ɔi̯ ui̯] after /w p ɸ m/

[Xephyr]

My old conlang was butts and sucked and I gave it the boot it deserved. I'm now working on a similar one that is hopefully less butts and sucks slightly less, and this is its more-tolerable phonology.


Sorry for the huge. For some reason it keeps doubling in size when post it here.

Just the inventory. Posting the phonotactics and morphophonology would be tedious.

The overall sound but not the grammar I'm going for is mostly the same as my earlier conlang-- west coast North American with a couple tweaks. I've been moving slightly away from Athabascan and slightly closer to Salishan/Penutian in the last couple edits, though I haven't added glottalized sonorants... yet.


(P.S. Finlay, Americanist notation is less bulky with the affricates tS and tK, though not with ts where it creates ambiguity as to which notation you're using.)

[Nazario_M]

Here's the phonology of the conlang I'm working on (it hasn't a name yet):

Vowel in () can only occurr in loanwords. They are all short (though sequences of two identical vowels can occurr) and are never diphthongized.
Two tones are distinct: a low (natural) tone (which is unmarked) and a high one (marked with an acute accent on the syllable nucleus). A high tone of voice is usually associated with authority, that's why (expecially in the upper classes) is almost normative to raise one's low tone, even reaching a falsetto. This can minimize the distinction between high and low tone, but never nullify it.
Two tonological processes can occurr: downstep and upstep. Downstep occurs when two or more high-tone syllables (or, better, morae) come together (also across word boundaries): the first mora gets the highest tone, while the other ones progressively decreases theirs. Morae affected by downstep are always considered high and clearly distinct by low tone ones. Upstep is similar to downstep and occurs when two or more low-tone morae come together: the first mora gets the lowest tone, while the other ones progressively increases theirs. Of course, morae affected by upstep are distinct by high ones. No matter if downstepped high morae and upstepped low ones sound equal, but it's fundamental to keep the distinction between a high unaffected mora and an upstepped one (and, vice versa, between a low unaffected mora and a downstepped one).
The sounds shown above are pronounced according to the gender (and, for children, the age) of the speaker: in simple English, two pronunciation exists. The first one, only used by males, doesn't need any other explanation, because it's the one the orthography is based to. The second one, used by females and children, pronounces /t͡s / as [s] and /s/ as /h/. Moreover, male version is usually affected by vowel devoicing between voiceless consonants (or between a voiceless consonant and a pausa). Only /i/ and /u/ are affected and it's absolutely optional. On the other hand, female version is sometimes affected by consonant voicing between vowels. Only [s] and [h] (both from /s/ and from /h/) are affected and it's absolutely optional too.
Using the improper pronunciation is not forbidden and it can often be done for humorous or ironical purpose. In this case, both males and females tend to exaggerate: men abuses of consonant voicing, while women tend to apply vowel devoicing to /a/ (and other vowels) too. Women can use male pronunciation to give emphasis, but abusing of this device is considered rude. However, the use of female pronunciation by a man is often considered a sign of effeminacy or childishness.
Proper names (of person or animal) must always be pronounced according to the pronunciation of the gender they belong. Pronouncing them improperly is considered very impolite.

Syllable structure is a simple (C)(j)V.

Some example:
Palasíla /pà.là.sí.là/ (spoken by a male) [pà↑làsílà] (by a female or a child) [pà↑làhílà] or (occasionally) [pà↑làɦílà]
OR
Palacíla /pà.là.t͡sí.là/ (spoken by a male) [pà↑làt͡sílà] (by a female or a child) [pà↑làsílà] or (occasionally) [pà↑làzílà] - Brazil

Sasuki /sà.sù.kì/ (only pronounced according to male version because it's a masculine given name) [sà↑sùkì] or (more often) [sà↑sù ̥kì] or (if the next word starts with a voiceless consonant or there is a pausa) [sà↑sù ̥kì ̥]
(the ring should be below the the vowel, but this is the best I can do)

Líca (only pronounced according to female version because it's a feminine given name) /lí.t͡sà/ [lísà] or (occasionally) [lízà]

Sorry for my bad English (I'm Italian).

[finlay]

(P.S. Finlay, Americanist notation bla bla bla)

Lol, a special note just for me. I feel honoured.

I take it you've only used the american notation for those two sounds, though... I seem to remember that there were other differences like y instead of j. I can't remember.

[Nortaneous]

Better orthography for the thing I posted earlier: (also I think I'll have interdentals instead of / in variation with linguolabials)

Code: Select all

p  t̼  ts  tʲ  k̟  k̠  ʡ  ʔ     p th ts t  k  q x  7
ɓ         ɗʲ  ɠ̟              b       d  g
   θ̼  s   sʲ  x̟     ʜ  h       c  s  sh kh   xh h
   ð̼  z                        r  z
   l̼      lʲ  j                lh    l  y

i̘ ɪ ʊ u̘   ĩ ũ   
e̘  ə  o̘   ẽ õ   
   a       ã    

ǀʰ  ǃʰ  ǁʰ  ǂʰ      c' t' l' j'
ŋǀˀ ŋǃˀ ŋǁˀ ŋǂˀ     cn tn ln jn

There's also some things with the nasals, but I can't be bothered to explain them.

I take it you've only used the american notation for those two sounds, though... I seem to remember that there were other differences like y instead of j. I can't remember.

He did and it does.

[Cedh]

Another quick sketch:

Code: Select all

p   t   tɬ   ts   tɕ   ʈʂ   k   kʷ   ʔ
    t’  tɬ’  ts’  tɕ’  ʈʂ’  k’  kʷ’
f       ɬ    s    ɕ    ʂ             h
        l         j    ɹ        w
m   n             ɲ


i   ɨ   u         iː  ɨː  uː
    ʌ             iæ̯  ɨʌ̯  uɒ̯
  æ   ɒ             æː  ɑː

/ɨ ɨː ɨʌ̯ ʌ ɑː/ are rounded to [ʉ ʉː uɒ̯ ɒ ɒː] adjacent to /kʷ kʷ’ f w/.
/u uː ɨʌ̯ ʌ/ are fronted to [ʉ ʉː iæ̯ æ] adjacent to /tɕ tɕ’ ɕ ɲ j/

Syllable structure: (C)V(ː,ʔ,h,ʂ,ɕ,s,ɬ,l,ɹ,n), with empty onsets allowed only word-initially.

Example words:

ɹiːt’æ
ʔɒːkʷ’ɒhu
hiæ̯tɬ’ʌ
tɕ’uɒ̯hkʷɒ
tɬɑːtuɒ̯
hɨʌ̯ʂtɨː
tɕitæɕ
ɬuʔnu
kɨʌ̯ɬt’ɨʂ
sʌts’ɨ
piːfɒː
tɕɨːt’æmiɕ
lɑːɕæ
utɬ’ʌʔ
k’iæ̯tæɬ
kʷʉk’ɨʌ̯
pɨlɨ
kʷ’æfɒ
mɨʌ̯ʔni
ɲuɒ̯ɹuʔ
nuɹɨː
ɨːɕɒ
hʌɹk’ɑː
ts’iæ̯ɬin
æt’uɒ̯mi

[finlay]

I take it you've only used the american notation for those two sounds, though... I seem to remember that there were other differences like y instead of j. I can't remember.

He did and it does.

Quite apart from me almost not getting what you were on about because neither auxiliary verb matches with what I said (but maybe that's because I've been doing too much TEFLing – either way, I'd say "He has and there are"), I kind of wrote that as an invitation to tell me more about the differences...

Also, I don't get why you think that phonology is realistic.

[Z500]

Thsäv's phonology has changed a little since i introduced it, and since i'm sure everyone forgot that post by now, i'll post it here:

Thsäv has 34 distinct phonemes - 23 consonants and 11 vowels

stops <k p t kh ph th g b d> /k p t̪ kʰ pʰ tʰ g b d̪/
fricatives <h s z v> /h s z β/
nasals <m n mh nh> /m n̪ m̥ n̪̊/
taps <r gr/rg br/rb> /ɾ ɾˠ ɾʷ/
approximants <w j y̆> /w j ɥ/

- after a consonant, <w j y̆>, instead of being independent phonemes, impart labialization, palatalization, and labio-palatalization to the preceding consonant, respectively (e.g. ny̆ād /nᶣɒːd/, sjeoh /sʲɪo̤/)
- palatalization causes an additional raising of the following vowel (e.g. phjekuht [pʲʰɪk.ʉ̤ʔ], khy̆äh [kᶣʰɛ̤ː])
- <t d n nh> are dental, but <th> is alveolar. in positions where <th> must be deaspirated, it stays alveolar. these articulations will be assumed from here on, unmarked
- <t> is realized as [ʔ] at the end of a word and before <n nh>, though it is also likely to be [t̪] between vowels
in some dialects, /p/ and /k/ also become [ʔ] at the end of a word, rounding and backing the preceding vowels respectively
- aspirated stops cannot coexist in adjacent syllables or the same syllable. if one stop is stressed, it will remain aspirated; otherwise, it is the second stop that will remain aspirated
- <th> is realized as [ʔ] before <kh ph th d>. /t/ + /tʰ/ clusters across word boundaries are realized as [tʰː]
- <k p t> + <h> sequences across word boundaries may merge to <kh ph th>
- <m n mh nh> assimilate before consonants with a different POA (e.g. pamgat [pɐŋ.gɐʔ])
- <r> is realized as [ɾˠ] when next to <k>, and as [ɾʷ] when next to <b> or <w>
- in some dialects, <gr rg> are pronounced [ɣ̊ɾˠ ɾˠɣ̊], and <br rb> [β̥ɾʷ ɾʷβ̥]
- <rd> is realized as [ɾ], but unlike <r> it is not affected by adjacent rounded or velar consonants
- when <s> occurs after <kh ph th>, they merge to [ksʰ psʰ tsʰ]
- <g b d z v m n> + <h> across word boundaries causes deletion of <h> and breathiness of following vowel (/pʉb.hɒɾ/ [pʉɒ̤ɾ])
in some dialects these sequences may be realized as [ɣ β ð z̤ β̤ m̤ n̤] instead (thus the example may also be realized as [pʉ.β̤ɒɾ], with the diacritic appearing under the lowercase beta)

short
<a e i o u>
/ɐ ɛ ɪ o̝ ʉ/

long
<ā ä ē ī ō ū>
/ɒː aː ɛː iː oː uː/

<o> is lowered to [ɒ] before the taps <r>, but not <br/rb> or <gr/rg>

vowels can be made breathy-voiced with an underdot or following <h>; e.g. <āh> /ɒ̤ː/, <oh ọ> /o̤/

some vowels have alternate pronunciations. they may be used universally by certain speakers, only in certain words (particularly [ɐː]), or not at all:

/aː/ [ɐː]
/ɪ/ [ɪ̈]
/ʉ/ [ʏ ʲu ʲʉ ᶣɪ]
/uː/ [ʉː]


syllable structure

syllables are in the form (C)(A/T)V(C)

where C = consonant, A = approximant, T = tap, V = vowel


stress

most words are stressed at the first syllable. words beginning with <ur> and <ar> are stressed on the second syllable; in this position <u a> have the special pronunciations [ɵ ə]. word stress is pronounced slightly louder than the following syllables and with a higher pitch, the pitch falling with each subsequent syllable. the next stressed syllable will rise in pitch again, though slightly lower than in the preceding word.

some words merge due to phonetic mutation (next section), being pronounced as one word with two stressed syllables.


voiced stop elision

historically, <g b d> lenited between vowels and before consonants. in Thsäv the lenited consonants have disappeared, leaving diphthongs in place of sequences of <vowel> + <voiced stop> + <vowel>, and compensatorily lengthened vowels before <voiced stop> + <consonant> clusters. if the first vowel was followed by <b>, then it is rounded; it is backed if followed by <g>. <d> has no effect on the preceding vowel.

g b
a [ɑ] [ɶ]
e [ɤ] [œ]
i [ʊ] [ʏ]
o [o] [o]
u [ʉ]
ā [ɒː] [ɒː]
ä [ɑː] [ɶː]
ē [ʌ͓ː] [œː]
ī [ɤː] [yː]
ō [oː] [oː]
ū [uː] [uː]

[ʊ] is unrounded
[ɤ] and [ɤː] are back-mid

despite the name, <z v> are also included in the process of voiced stop elision. <z> is treated identically to <d>, and <v> to <b>.

short vowels are reduced to a non-syllabic glide when adjacent to a long vowel (e.g. /ɶaː/ [ɶ̯aː]). /ɪ o ʉ/ reduce to [j w ɥ].

thagān /tʰɑ̯ɒːn/
nhedā /n̥ɛ̯ɒː/
ubä /ɥaː/
ugān /wɒːn/

short vowels also reduce before a diphthong

ku ugit
/kʉ uɪʔ/
[kᶣuɪʔ]

gud [gʉd] "fish"
ugud [uʉd] "fish (acc)"
thagud [tʰɑʉd] "of a fish"
ogud [oʉd] "to a fish"
pagud [pɑʉd] "at a fish"

there is much variation between the pronunciation of these diphthongs in Thsäv dialects.

/tʰɑʉd/ [tʰɑud] [tʰɑɥd] [tˠʰʉd] [tʰʊːt] [tʰoːt]

should two consecutive syllables contain diphthongs, the final consonant is pronounced as liason:

[tʰɛ̯ɐ̤ːd.ɛʉ̤ʔ]
theahdezuht
anti-alcohol

[Xephyr]

I take it you've only used the american notation for those two sounds, though... I seem to remember that there were other differences like y instead of j. I can't remember.

He did and it does.

Quite apart from me almost not getting what you were on about because neither auxiliary verb matches with what I said (but maybe that's because I've been doing too much TEFLing – either way, I'd say "He has and there are"), I kind of wrote that as an invitation to tell me more about the differences...

Also, I don't get why you think that phonology is realistic.

APN is superior to IPA in its representation of the common affricates [tS] and [tK], which is why I use it for those two sounds. In almost every other respect, though, Americanist phonetic notation is a fucking trainwreck.

[Nortaneous]

Z500: Are you using <y> anywhere? If not, why is there <y̆>?

I take it you've only used the american notation for those two sounds, though... I seem to remember that there were other differences like y instead of j. I can't remember.

He did and it does.

Quite apart from me almost not getting what you were on about because neither auxiliary verb matches with what I said (but maybe that's because I've been doing too much TEFLing – either way, I'd say "He has and there are"), I kind of wrote that as an invitation to tell me more about the differences...

Also, I don't get why you think that phonology is realistic.

APN is superior to IPA in its representation of the common affricates [tS] and [tK], which is why I use it for those two sounds. In almost every other respect, though, Americanist phonetic notation is a fucking trainwreck.

How so? Americanist is a trainwreck for languages significantly different from the ones it was designed for, but it's much better than IPA for those languages. (Unlike UPA, which really is a fucking trainwreck.)

[Xephyr]

How so? Americanist is a trainwreck for languages significantly different from the ones it was designed for, but it's much better than IPA for those languages. (Unlike UPA, which really is a fucking trainwreck.)

I see this defense alot, and it's patently completely and utter bullshit. Uvular consonants are common in both the eastern and western hemisphere, but IPA is consistent in its representation of them-- APN uses a dot for the voiced stop <ġ> but still uses <q> for the voiceless variant. The actual orthographies of several west-coast languages even use underlined k for consistency viz. g and x. But APN isn't even consistent in its use of underlines-- Ṇ isn't uvular, nor is it even alveolar as it might suggest, but it's velar. Oh and speaking of which, whose bright idea was it to use garish-ass CAPITAL LETTERS for voiceless nasals, sounds which occur on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean? Right, it was Americanist phonetic notation. It marks palatals with a half-ring below for stops, a hacek for affricates and fricatives, and a tilde for nasals. Mind you, the tilde is elsewhere used to mark an rhotic trill, and the hacek to mark an ALVEOLAR rhotic spirant. And the vowels aren't much better-- they use umlaut for fronting as well as backing, which actually wouldn't bother me if they were at least consistent, but for the openmost vowels they just commandeer the IPA strategy of <æ a ɑ ɒ>.

I dare you to name one language spoken in North or South America to which-- with the exception of the two phonemes I mentioned earlier-- APN is better suited than IPA.

[Nortaneous]

Uvular consonants are common in both the eastern and western hemisphere, but IPA is consistent in its representation of them-- APN uses a dot for the voiced stop <ġ> but still uses <q> for the voiceless variant.

Better to avoid diacritics when possible than to overload on consistency. Besides, IPA can't be used for orthography here; how do you capitalize a smallcaps letter?

But APN isn't even consistent in its use of underlines-- Ṇ isn't uvular, nor is it even alveolar as it might suggest, but it's velar.

Not according to Wikipedia.

Oh and speaking of which, whose bright idea was it to use garish-ass CAPITAL LETTERS for voiceless nasals, sounds which occur on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean?

Not that common.

It marks palatals with a half-ring below for stops, a hacek for affricates and fricatives, and a tilde for nasals.

How many languages for which APN is commonly used have palatal stops? (not affricates)

edit: Also, nobody actually does this as far as I've seen. Normally they just use a superscript <y>.

Mind you, the tilde is elsewhere used to mark an rhotic trill

The nature of the rhotic normally doesn't have to be specified.

and the hacek to mark an ALVEOLAR rhotic spirant.

How many languages for which APN is commonly use have an alveolar rhotic spirant?

And the vowels aren't much better-- they use umlaut for fronting as well as backing, which actually wouldn't bother me if they were at least consistent, but for the openmost vowels they just commandeer the IPA strategy of <æ a ɑ ɒ>.

That probably came from IPA, which fucked everything up horribly. Contrasting <a ɑ> is completely idiotic, and <ɒ> just makes things worse.

I dare you to name one language spoken in North or South America to which-- with the exception of the two phonemes I mentioned earlier-- APN is better suited than IPA.

Nuu-chah-nulth:
APN: ʔuyaaƛaḥ hawiiʔaƛii maapt̓ał c̓išaaʔatḥ ʔuukʷił yuułuʔiłʔatḥ ʔaḥʔaaʔaƛsi n̓ačuʔałʔaƛsi hiikʷis
IPA: ʔujaːt͡ɬaħ hawiːʔat͡ɬiː maːptʼaɬ t͡sʼiʃaːʔatħ ʔuːkʷiɬ juːɬuʔiɬʔatħ ʔaħʔaːʔat͡ɬsi n̰at͡ʃuʔaɬʔat͡ɬsi hiːkʷis

A lot of the difference is in the glottalized consonants; IPA can't handle glottalized consonants specifically, instead sorting them into ejectives and creaky-voiced consonants, and apostrophes are much uglier than diacritics. But there's also the issue of <ɬ>, which is not only much uglier than <ł>, but also not used outside IPA at all.

APN can be used in many cases to create a sane orthography, especially for the languages for which it was designed, whereas it's almost impossible to do the same with IPA, even with substantial modification to remove the non-Latin letters. Just look at the clusterfuck that is the African reference alphabet.

[Xephyr]

Uvular consonants are common in both the eastern and western hemisphere, but IPA is consistent in its representation of them-- APN uses a dot for the voiced stop <ġ> but still uses <q> for the voiceless variant.

Better to avoid diacritics when possible than to overload on consistency. Besides, IPA can't be used for orthography here; how do you capitalize a smallcaps letter?

You're making an argument based on the avoidance of diacritics? What? Have you SEEN the APN table?

But APN isn't even consistent in its use of underlines-- Ṇ isn't uvular, nor is it even alveolar as it might suggest, but it's velar.

Not according to Wikipedia.

I'm looking at Wikipedia right now, bucko, and it's agreeing with me and not with you.

Oh and speaking of which, whose bright idea was it to use garish-ass CAPITAL LETTERS for voiceless nasals, sounds which occur on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean?

Not that common.

So we should just throw all sense of aesthetic and standards of consistency to the wind when it comes to uncommon sounds, even when much more concise and pleasing alternatives exist?

It marks palatals with a half-ring below for stops, a hacek for affricates and fricatives, and a tilde for nasals.

How many languages for which APN is commonly used have palatal stops? (not affricates)

[paraphasing what he said before the ninja-edit]Palatals aren't that common, either.[/paraphrase]

See my previous statement.

Mind you, the tilde is elsewhere used to mark an rhotic trill

The nature of the rhotic normally doesn't have to be specified.

See my previous statement.

and the hacek to mark an ALVEOLAR rhotic spirant.

How many languages for which APN is commonly use have an alveolar rhotic spirant?

See my previous statement.

And the vowels aren't much better-- they use umlaut for fronting as well as backing, which actually wouldn't bother me if they were at least consistent, but for the openmost vowels they just commandeer the IPA strategy of <æ a ɑ ɒ>.

That probably came from IPA, which fucked everything up horribly. Contrasting <a ɑ> is completely idiotic, and <ɒ> just makes things worse.

IPA is at least consistent with its treatment of vowels.

I dare you to name one language spoken in North or South America to which-- with the exception of the two phonemes I mentioned earlier-- APN is better suited than IPA.

Nuu-chah-nulth:
APN: ʔuyaaƛaḥ hawiiʔaƛii maapt̓ał c̓išaaʔatḥ ʔuukʷił yuułuʔiłʔatḥ ʔaḥʔaaʔaƛsi n̓ačuʔałʔaƛsi hiikʷis
IPA: ʔujaːt͡ɬaħ hawiːʔat͡ɬiː maːptʼaɬ t͡sʼiʃaːʔatħ ʔuːkʷiɬ juːɬuʔiɬʔatħ ʔaħʔaːʔat͡ɬsi n̰at͡ʃuʔaɬʔat͡ɬsi hiːkʷis

This example seems to work entirely off of APN's concise use of ƛ (which I specifically specified), and the inability of this board to use proper spacing with ː.

A lot of the difference is in the glottalized consonants; IPA can't handle glottalized consonants specifically, instead sorting them into ejectives and creaky-voiced consonants

Probably because those are two different sounds.

and apostrophes are much uglier than diacritics.

Not when the "diacritic" in question is also an apostrophe.

But there's also the issue of <ɬ>, which is not only much uglier than <ł>, but also not used outside IPA at all.

That's an "issue"? The two letters look almost identical.

APN can be used in many cases to create a sane orthography, especially for the languages for which it was designed, whereas it's almost impossible to do the same with IPA, even with substantial modification to remove the non-Latin letters. Just look at the clusterfuck that is the African reference alphabet.

And yet this is almost never done.

[Culden]

Finally looking through this, my phonologies seem pretty boring