zompist bboard

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2013 5:23 pm**

So, yesterday I got an inspiration to make a protolang. It's still very incomplete, but at least I managed to do something besides phonology. So here it is:

Phonology:
Vowels: /a, a:, i, i:, ai, ai:, ia, ia:/
Consonants: /p, t, k/, /s/, /m, n/, /r/

Syllable structure: (C3)(C)V(C2)
C2: /k, m, n, r,/
C3: /p, t, k, s/

Allophony:
/p, t, k, s/,V_V=>/b, d, g, z/
/k/= [k~h~u]
/r/= [r~l]free variation

Ortography:
Vowels: <a, aa, i, ii, ai, aii, ia, iaa>
Consonants: <p, t, k, s, m, n, r,>

Personal pronouns:
<mi>: 1.p.s.
<ti>: 2.p.s.
<ki>: 3.p.s.prox.
<kak>: 3.p.s.obv.
<ni>: 3.p.s. (for non-humans)
<man>: 1.p.pl.ex.
<mair>: 1.p.pl.inc.
<tar>: 2.p.pl.
<kia>: 3.p.pl.
<niin>: 3.p.pl. (for non-humans)
You can add <-man> to mark deference.

I will post more later, but I would like to hear your opinions (especially about /k/=[k~h~u])

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2013 6:35 pm**

ffs there is no difference between a protolang and a regular language. anyway

1) no way would you have an r~l distinction with eight consonants.
2) no allophonic palatalization anywhere?
3) what's the environment for the k~h~u allophony?
4) if you really want k~u, if i were you i'd call it /w/ and say that w > [k~g] syllable-initially

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2013 7:19 pm**

How does your proximate/obviate distinction work, exactly?

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2013 7:21 pm**

Nortaneous wrote:ffs there is no difference between a protolang and a regular language.I know that. I just call it protolang because I'm going to derive my other languages from it and I don't have better name for it. anyway

1) no way would you have an r~l distinction with eight consonants.
Okay, I'll probably have them in free variation
2) no allophonic palatalization anywhere?
Well, I wanted to do language without palatalization, since my other lang has lot of allophonic palatalization
3) what's the environment for the k~h~u allophony?
u usually at the end of syllable, but mostly they are in free variation.
4) if you really want k~u, if i were you i'd call it /w/ and say that w > [k~g] syllable-initially
Interesting, why?

Posted: **Tue Sep 24, 2013 10:34 pm**

AK-92 wrote:
Nortaneous wrote:ffs there is no difference between a protolang and a regular language.I know that. I just call it protolang because I'm going to derive my other languages from it and I don't have better name for it. anyway

1) no way would you have an r~l distinction with eight consonants.
Okay, I'll probably have them in free variation
2) no allophonic palatalization anywhere?
Well, I wanted to do language without palatalization, since my other lang has lot of allophonic palatalization
3) what's the environment for the k~h~u allophony?
u usually at the end of syllable, but mostly they are in free variation.
4) if you really want k~u, if i were you i'd call it /w/ and say that w > [k~g] syllable-initially
Interesting, why?

I think Nort was commenting moreso on your proto-languages very unlikely phonology. Even PIE is analyzed has having a full vowel inventory (even though could have just been allophones of [w j] in the zero-grade.)

Posted: **Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:48 pm**

I'll post more stuff tomorrow

zompist bboard

My protolang

My protolang

Re: My protolang

Re: My protolang

Re: My protolang

Re: My protolang

Re: My protolang