Post your conlang's phonology

[txmmj]

I'm trying to edit my vowel inventory... But I'm not sure how realistic or possible it could be. Basically, I'm pretty happy with how the vowels are in normal situations. However, <a e o> change sometimes in unstressed situations. I don't know if these changes seem reasonable or whatever... Any advice would be much appreciate as to what I should do! (Also, if the vowel inventory in general seems like too much or like it doesn't really fit, let me know!) Thanks in advance.

/a e i o ø ɯ u y/ <a e i o u ɯ w y>
/ə 0 ə ɪ u/ <a a e e o> (unstressed)
/aɪ oɪ øʏ/ <æ œ ᵫ>

• <a> in the syllable before the stressed syllable isn’t pronounced
• <e> is pronounced as /ɪ/ when unstressed at the end of a word
• <o> is pronounced /u/ when unstressed at the end of a word

[Cedh]

the labial articulation tends to become a bit hard to discern before a rounded vowel, yes, but delabialization before a labial sounds pretty weird to me.

Ok I'll change that.

Neutralization of the /k/ :: /kʷ/ contrast before /u/ is actually quite likely, and since the labiality can easily be taken to belong to the following vowel in such positions, it's not inconceivable that the resulting sound would be interpreted as the phoneme /k/, even if it's realized more like [kʷ] and there's a /k/ : /kʷ/ contrast in other positions...

[Chaoibhuin]

After a lot of toing and froing I have decided upon the following phonology for my language:

Consonants:
Plosive: /p t tˤ k/
Fricative: /f s sˤ ʃ x/
Nasal: /m n nˤ ŋ/
Approximant: /l lˤ/

Vowels:
/i a u/

Allophony:
/i a u/ > [e ɑ o] when adjacent to a pharyngealized consonant.

Phonotactics:
CV(C) syllable structure. Words do not begin in /tˤ sˤ nˤ lˤ/. Words do not end in /p f m ʃ/.

I'm still not entirely confident that it is naturalistic though. Is there anything odd about it? Is it odd that there is a series of pharyngealized consonants but there are no pharyngeal consonants? Also, does it make sense that /i a u/ > [e ɑ o] when adjacent to a pharyngealized consonant?

[Whimemsz]

Also, does it make sense that /i a u/ > [e ɑ o] when adjacent to a pharyngealized consonant?

That part certainly is very naturalistic--pharyngealization generally lowers or centralizes neighboring vowels. I don't have time to look up the pharyngealized consonants without pharyngeal consonants thing, but you might be able to check on WALS (http://wals.info/).

[8Deer]

Also, does it make sense that /i a u/ > [e ɑ o] when adjacent to a pharyngealized consonant?

That part certainly is very naturalistic--pharyngealization generally lowers or centralizes neighboring vowels. I don't have time to look up the pharyngealized consonants without pharyngeal consonants thing, but you might be able to check on WALS (http://wals.info/).

Chilcotin has pharyngealized alveolars without pharyngeal consonants. I have a feeling some other language of that area has this too but I can't remember right now.

[cromulant]

Is it odd that there is a series of pharyngealized consonants but there are no pharyngeal consonants?

It's a bit odd, but by no means impossible. Ubykh had 14 pharygealized consonants, and no pharyngeal consonants.

According to UPSID, !Xu has a "pharyngealized voiced velar nasal" (and is the only language in the world with this phoneme), and no pharyngeals. Verify. (!Xoo also has pharyngealized or "strident" vowels). Tamasheq is also listed as having pharyngealizeds but no pharyngeals. Again, verify. Wikipedia contradicts both of these.

But Ubykh proves that it can happen, and has happened at least once.

BTW, WALS Chapter 19 does not distinguish between pharyngeal and pharyngealized consonants, but since it's so rare to have the latter without the former, this might not matter.

[Herr Dunkel]

I have a simple Nahuatl-inspired one:

/p pʰ t tʰ k kʰ q qʰ/
/s ʃ x/
/m n j w/
/t͡s t͡ʃ t͡ɬ/
/t͡s' t͡ʃ' t͡ɬ'/

/i iː/
/ɛ ɛː ɔ ɔː/
/a aː/

[Maoti]

I'm trying to edit my vowel inventory... But I'm not sure how realistic or possible it could be. Basically, I'm pretty happy with how the vowels are in normal situations. However, <a e o> change sometimes in unstressed situations. I don't know if these changes seem reasonable or whatever... Any advice would be much appreciate as to what I should do! (Also, if the vowel inventory in general seems like too much or like it doesn't really fit, let me know!) Thanks in advance.

/a e i o ø ɯ u y/ <a e i o u ɯ w y>
/ə 0 ə ɪ u/ <a a e e o> (unstressed)
/aɪ oɪ øʏ/ <æ œ ᵫ>

• <a> in the syllable before the stressed syllable isn’t pronounced
• <e> is pronounced as /ɪ/ when unstressed at the end of a word
• <o> is pronounced /u/ when unstressed at the end of a word

Your vowel inventory (/a e i o ø ɯ u y/) is identical to that of Turkish. Don't know if that was intentional. It makes sense to me that /e/ and /o/ are raised to [ɪ] and when unstressed at the end of a word. Vowels are raised at the end of a word in some natlangs too. In Brazilian Portuguese, unstressed word-final /e/ is raised to [ɪ] or , and unstressed word-final /o/ is raised to [ʊ] or . Since unstressed word-final /e/ and /o/ are raised in your language, it would make sense to also raise unstressed word-final /a/ and /ø/. You could raised /a/ and /ø/ to [ɐ] and [ʏ] respectively. One problem with having as an allophone of /o/ is that you already have /u/ as a phoneme. Perhaps you could change the raised allophone of /o/ to [ʊ] to distinguish it phonetically from /u/.

[Whimemsz]

I have a simple Nahuatl-inspired one:

/p pʰ t tʰ k kʰ q qʰ/
/s ʃ x/
/m n j w/
/t͡s t͡ʃ t͡ɬ/
/t͡s' t͡ʃ' t͡ɬ'/

It's odd to have the plosives have one contrast (plain-aspirated) and affricates a different contrast (plain-ejective). I don't know if there's any natlang precedent for that.

[Nortaneous]

But Ubykh proves that it can happen, and has happened at least once.

Most NWC langs have them, so I'd guess it did at one point and lost them relatively recently. Also, note that the Karacalar dialect lost contrastive pharyngealization.

One problem with having as an allophone of /o/ is that you already have /u/ as a phoneme. Perhaps you could change the raised allophone of /o/ to [ʊ] to distinguish it phonetically from /u/.

Nothing wrong with having them merge in that position.

[Herr Dunkel]

I have a simple Nahuatl-inspired one:

/p pʰ t tʰ k kʰ q qʰ/
/s ʃ x/
/m n j w/
/t͡s t͡ʃ t͡ɬ/
/t͡s' t͡ʃ' t͡ɬ'/

It's odd to have the plosives have one contrast (plain-aspirated) and affricates a different contrast (plain-ejective). I don't know if there's any natlang precedent for that.

Aspiration developed from an earlier ejectivisation.
Ejective fricatives developed into ejective affricates.

[sirdanilot]

Plain affricates and aspirated stops are more logical, in that case, than aspirated stops and ejective affricates. Though nobody is certain, some people think that Hebrew *s' or *sˤ (emphatic /s/) became /t͡s/.

What you could also do, is merge everything into affricates. *p' t' k' q' > p͡ɸ (or pf) t͡s k͡x q͡χ . The only merger you have then is *s' and *t'.

Though really, there are many options with ejectives. For example, the north-american language Nootka developed ʕ from *qʷʼ. Systematic pharyngealization of ejective consonants is also a possibility. Tigrinya sometimes pronounces q' as χʼ .

[txmmj]

Your vowel inventory (/a e i o ø ɯ u y/) is identical to that of Turkish. Don't know if that was intentional. It makes sense to me that /e/ and /o/ are raised to [ɪ] and when unstressed at the end of a word. Vowels are raised at the end of a word in some natlangs too. In Brazilian Portuguese, unstressed word-final /e/ is raised to [ɪ] or , and unstressed word-final /o/ is raised to [ʊ] or . Since unstressed word-final /e/ and /o/ are raised in your language, it would make sense to also raise unstressed word-final /a/ and /ø/. You could raised /a/ and /ø/ to [ɐ] and [ʏ] respectively. One problem with having as an allophone of /o/ is that you already have /u/ as a phoneme. Perhaps you could change the raised allophone of /o/ to [ʊ] to distinguish it phonetically from /u/.

I actually haven't ever really done much research on Turkish, so it was a complete coincidence.
But thanks for the advice! As for in other unstressed situations, does having only /a/ and /e/ become /ə/ work? Should /o/ follow the same pattern as well, or does that not make sense? Should I only have /e/ act as /ə/ in unstressed situations? Also, I had /a/ become silent when in a syllable before the stressed syllable. Does this seem okay or too farfetched?

[Chagen]

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/

[Thry]

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/

What about vowels?

[Chagen]

Same as Japanese except /u/.

Kron's vowels are /i e a o u/. No Diphthongs.

[Grimalkin]

Hmm, I dunno how easy it would be to distinguish /ʨ/ and /c͡ç/. To me they sound extremely similar.

[Chagen]

Well, I love me some palatals. I went on a binge of them for a few of my langs.

Here are two other of my langs, Föro and Cryset:

Föro:

Stops:
/p b t d c ɟ k g/
<p b t d c j k g>

Fricatives:
/f v s z θ ð ʃ ʒ χ/
<f v s z tx dx sx zx h>

Affricates:
/tʃ dʒ bβ/
<cx gx bv>

Nasal:
/n m ŋ ɴ/
<n m ng nx>

Misc.:
/l r j w/
<l r y w>

Vowels:/i e a o u ɯ ɤ æ ø y /
<i e a o u ix ex ax ox ux>
The vowels have an umlauting system similar to German.

Cryset:

/p pʲ b bʲ t d k kʲ g gʲ/
<p pj b bj t d k/c kj/cj g gj>

Fricatives:
/ɸ β f fʲ v vʲ s z ʃ ʒ ɕ ʑ h hʲ x/
<fh vh f fj v vj s z sc zc scj zcj h hj ch>
​
Affricates:
/ts dz tʃ dʒ tɕ dʑ/
<ts dz cz gh czj ghj>​

Approx.:
/l ʀ ʀʲ w j/
<l r rj w y>

Nasal:
/m mʲ n ŋ /
<m mj n ng>
​
Vowels:
/ɑ æ ɛ e i I u y o ø aɪ eɪ aʊ ui/
<a ah e eh i ih u ü o ø ai ei au ui>​

[ol bofosh]

Working on a second language already and got a few phones already. I wanted to try something that would give my mouth a challenge. I swear I must look like I'm speaking in tongues...

Stops: glottal, uvular, post-alveolar, labiodent
Approximants: velar, retroflex, labdent
Nasal: uvular
Affricate: retroflex, post-alveolar
Lateral: post-alveolar
Fricative: post-alveolar, dental

It's a start, I've left out details like apspiration and voiced, though I have some figured out. My vowels I'm working out as I go along. I'm going for "conventional" vowels but they are radically changed when I put them next to the sounds above (which adds to the "differentness"); I still don't get very well the positioning of the tongue with vowels (and approximants give me a hard time at times too).

Any first comments?

[Solarius]

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/

I think it's very unnaturalistic to have palatals without velars. They would probably become velars very quickly.

[Whimemsz]

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/

I think it's very unnaturalistic to have palatals without velars. They would probably become velars very quickly.

Klao does this, so it's not impossible or unnaturalistic--it's just extremely rare.

[Taernsietr]

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/

I think it's very unnaturalistic to have palatals without velars. They would probably become velars very quickly.

Also, I think /ç c͡ç/ are very unlikely to appear without their voiced counterparts, since all others series have a voicing contrast.

Also, looking at all your phoneme inventories - you don't need all that. They are very kitchen-sinky phoneme-wise (can you even distinguish, by yourself, /tʃ tɕ/ ?) and you're going very overboard on orthography (e.g. the whole Cryset).

To make for an interesting phoneme inventory (as in, NOT an entire phonology or conlang) you don't need that many series and weird stuff - even though you might be in awe before the IPA chart or something, a giant inventory is just going to work against you...

You said you like palatals, so why not grab a very basic inventory (say, /p t k m n s h r j/) and add in some palatal consonants and/or constrasts (say, /p t c k m n ɲ s ɕ h l ʎ r j/ or /p pʲ t tʲ k kʲ m mʲ n nʲ s sʲ ç h r rʲ j/)? You don't even need all this crap in these two examples.

[Whimemsz]

Hmm, I dunno how easy it would be to distinguish /ʨ/ and /c͡ç/. To me they sound extremely similar.

I can't find any languages which contrast the two...but it's still silly to say that you think it would be hard to distinguish them in principle, based on the evidence that you sure can't distinguish them! I can't distinguish virtually any of the click phonemes that speakers of Khoisan languages have no trouble with, but that's because I grew up speaking English and not !Kung.

[Chaoibhuin]

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.

[Grimalkin]

That's a lot of rhotics you've got there! I'm liking the lack of fricatives. Very Australian.

Hmm, I dunno how easy it would be to distinguish /ʨ/ and /c͡ç/. To me they sound extremely similar.

I can't find any languages which contrast the two...but it's still silly to say that you think it would be hard to distinguish them in principle, based on the evidence that you sure can't distinguish them! I can't distinguish virtually any of the click phonemes that speakers of Khoisan languages have no trouble with, but that's because I grew up speaking English and not !Kung.

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