zompist bboard

Only the following six vowels exist in Imperial Basic and Baikal: [ä], [a], [e], [o], [u], and the monophthnged diphthong [i], which we transcribe as [äɪ̯]. Is that enough distribution for [ç] and [x] to appear as allophones of [h], as they did in Old English?

Aʻatun Scratchpad: a Companion Index
AdditivesPreserved for posterity but outdated by edit nine (DON'T CLICK)
Edit nine: Grammar

Edit one: Topic name change for broader use. Original name referred to the above question about allophones of /h/.

Edit two: Current sound inventory for Basic with parenthetical transcription changes flanked by its alphabet for context as all of the vowel letters and y are variants of a hooked x glyph:
/m n/ <ӡ φ>
/p b t k g/ <я δ ϙ ה>
/f v s z ʃ h/ <ѳ с ς ш> (sigma's the sh digraph)
/ɹ(r) l j(y)/ <ω ѵ y>
/vl vɹ(vr) tl sv(ә) hl/ <и ψ γ ә ħ>
/ᴀ e(a) i(e) o u aɪ̯(i)/ <ä a y o u i>Outdated by edit four.

Edit three: Added index linking to associated topics.

Edit four: Sound inventory of Aʻatun (Galactic Standard):

/d g v z θ ʃ ɹ l e o ɑi ɑu oi/ are excluded from the tables above because they only appear in loanwords.
Allophones
/ʀ/ of /ʁ/ word-initially and /f/ of /ʁ/ word-finally

[Outsider redacted]

Edit five: changed Basic to IntergGalactic Standard above.

Edit six: Overhauled code blocks above to accurately represent Intergalactic Standard and Bahus' inventories because the Sphinx language was based on Ancient Egyptian.

Edit seven: Changed Baikar to Bahus aboveOutdated by edit eight

Edit eight: Redacted Outsider to focus on Galactic Standard.

Edit nine: Changed name to reflect narrower focus, changed Altrunian Conlang/Havi to Aʻatun above, and added a new link. Old name referred to both Aʻatun and what hadbeen Outsider

Sure, I suppose. I would be surprised, given this inventory for /ç/ to appear after vowels other than /i/~/äɪ̯/ and /e/.

Yeah, all that's needed for such allophony is a vowel inventory having both front and non-front vowels.


Am I right in assuming that this is supposed to mean that there is [äɪ̯] but no [i]? Your phrasing isn't really clear.

_________________
Bearlandic - Kunesian - Nåmúþ

They'd transcribe see as {se} as {e} is their transcription for our close front unrounded vowel, which we transcribe as {i}. That frees up {i} for use as our long i ({äɪ̯}). Note the links in the topic's first post.

I see. In the future, I would advise you to include the IPA in your posts instead of posting such links. Also, a note on the use of brackets:

• Slashes indicate a broad transcription
• Square brackets indicate a narrow transcription
• Pointy brackets indicate the orthographic representation

So, with the correct use of brackets, the vowels in your language are /a e i o u aɪ̯/, and they are written as <ä a e o u i> respectively, and the consonant phoneme /h/ has [ç] and [x] as two of its allophones.

_________________
Bearlandic - Kunesian - Nåmúþ

Partially correct. The vowels in Ħäyi (/'hlᴀyi/), what I'm calling Basic, and Bikäl (/'bikᴀl/) are transcribed /ᴀ a e o u i/. I was asking if the native speakers had the inventory to use [ç, x] as allophones of /h/ in Bikäl. Yes, this means I've changed to the vetoed transcription of the open central unrounded vowel. In Ältruneän IPA, /y/ is the palatal approximate—our /j/.

Does their inventory allow for an /ɔɪ̯/-style diphthong, monophthongized or otherwise? If so, the computer-friendly transcription options would be /oy̯/ and /oi̯/, with /y/ being the consonantal sound of the letter y—itself the romanization of a hooked x with a tilde.

Sure, you can add /ɔɪ̯/ or a similar diphthong. What is "monophthongised" supposed to mean in this context?

_________________
Bearlandic - Kunesian - Nåmúþ

It's, probably, the incorrect word, but I'm trying to say that they tend to transcribe vowel sounds, even those we use as diphthongs, with a single character (e.g. /i/~/aɪ̯/).

How you transcribe a sound in writing and how it's exactly pronounced are two entirely different matters. Words like "monophthong" and "diphthong" apply only to sounds, not to letters, so using the term "monophthong" for a phoneme that is transcribed with a single letter is indeed incorrect.

_________________
Bearlandic - Kunesian - Nåmúþ

I feel like here might be a more appropriate place to continue than the Romanisation Challenge. Are [p] and [b] distinct phonemes /p/ and /b/, or are they allophones of one underlying /p/? Also, what is up with those clusters, because you would need a very good reason to count them as one phoneme. And what was the though process between recycling random glyphs for your native script, without regard for their original meaning? I don't mean to sound overly critical, it just seems like a weird choice to me.

_________________
Bish Bash Rabadash

Generally speaking, the paired phonemes are allophones of the voiceless phoneme. I made /k/ and /g/ distinct because I don't feel the sounds are close enough to merit a single character to represent them.

It's made from the perspective of cultures unfamiliar with Earth's languages. Thus, the native speakers wouldn't know about the meanings here on Earth.

Firstly, [k] and [g] are no more different than [p] and [b] but its nice that it's not completely symmetrical. But more importantly, if the cultures have had no contact with Earth, how would they have come up with those characters? Also, all scripts should have a certain 'aesthetic' for lack of a better word: the glyphs all look like their related. Take the our English alphabet: just by allowing a semicircle, a shorter arc in <n>, a tall vertical line and a short horizontal line we get <b>, <c>, <d>, <e>, <f> (kinda), <h>, <l>, <m>, <n>, <o>, <p>, <q>, <r>, <s>, <t>, <u>. 16/26 from just 4 line types. Adding tails, short vertical and short diagonal lines, we add <i>, <j>, <k>, <v>, <w>, <x>, <y>, and <z>. Now all we have is <a> and <g>, which look very different handwritten anyway. I feel like just taking other characters doesn't give this, although it's not as bad as if they weren't all derived from Greek.

To see what I mean in other examples, just look at Maya or Lontara. Both have a very distinctive look.

Now I can't judge for not making a native script - most of my conlangs never get one because I'm never happy with the end result, but I do feel that just stealing other glyphs is a bit cheap and doesn't end up looking right.

Also, this should help with your bracket issue.

_________________
Bish Bash Rabadash

I see a Hebrew letter in there....

I think the script is good looking, but I also think it is a script ... you really shouldn't be calling it the Romanization if it's the people's native alphabet. If this was on earth, linguists would likely just use IPA as the Romanization like they do with some languages of southeast Asia.

_________________
Sunàqʷa the Sea Lamprey says:

Thanks for the help. I'm in the process of redoing the alphabet. I'll scan the new one into my computer and supply a link to the uploaded image in the first post once it's ready. Until then, this topic may go derelict.

Soap, Altrunian linguists wouldn't know Earth's IPA. Therefore, their IPA may end up radically different than ours. I'll always use the structure in the first post, though.

Just to make sure I understand correctly, I should record the voiceless phoneme before its voiced counterpart (e.g., /p b/) when transcribing the IPA for my conlangs, if both sounds exist.

Yeah, generally speaking. I don't know why that's the convention, but it is.

As for the IPA, we are on Earth, so it will just confuse us if you use anything else. Linguistics in your conworld are just that: in your conworld. It's still interesting, but it should ideally be kept separate enough from your conlang's grammar etc, or at least clearly marked, to avoid confusion.

EDIT: Also looking forwards to seeing the new alphabet

_________________
Bish Bash Rabadash

For the record, I'll be posting a computer-friendly alphabet, which may require various foreign language fonts, for use until I commission a font for Basic as well.

Is Baikal's current phonology (below notes) transcribed correctly? Would [ð] be a word-initial allophone of [t] when <th> is used for <t>, like Thavara (/'tɑ.vɑ.ɹɑ ~ 'ðɑ.vɑ.ɹɑ/)?
Note 1: Baikal has the following three dialects: Standard, Abyssal, and Celestial.
Note 2: Sounds marked with a ¹ don’t appear in the Celestial dialect, and those marked with a ² don’t appear in the Abyssal dialect.
/m n/
/p b t (ð¹) k² (x¹) g/
/f v s z (ʃ ç²) h/
/ɹ l j/
/vl vɹ tl sv hl/
/ɑ e i o u ɑi/
Allophones: [ð] of /t/ word-initially and replacing [d], [x] of /k/ after back vowels /ɑ o u/, and [ç] of /h/ after front vowels /i e/

/ð/ ad /x/ should really be with the fricatives, and I would put them in (normal brackets) if they only appear as allophones, but it looks fine otherwise. I would have expected /θ/ to have been the allophone of /t/, although /ð/ isn't impossible - weirder things happen all the time in language.
I'm still confused about the clusters in /vl vɹ tl sv hl/ though. Why are they being treated as phonemes?

_________________
Bish Bash Rabadash

You're correct; the clusters shouldn't be there. It's just a result of my autism compelling me to list every sound in the language (perfectionism, much).

Altrunian treatment of intervocalic <l>, with English pronunciations preceding local ones in parentheses:
1. de-voices to /l̥/ before <h> (/'sɪl.hɑ.nɑ~'si.l̥ɑ.nɑ/); and
2. pharyngealizes to /ʕ/ before /p b t k g f v (ð) s z ʃ/ ('lɪ.zol.dɑ~'li.zo.ʕtɑ~'li.zo.ʕðɑ/)

The current version of Basic's phonological code without explanations for the allophones is below. I'll edit the code into the first post after I explain all of the allophones.


() Parenthetical phones are allophones
* /d͡ɹ̝/ doesn't display correctly in a code block

Are you sure that /p b/ are labio-dental while /f v/ are bilabial? Shouldn't they be the other way round?

Yes, Kath. Don't ask how I messed that up looking off a chart. I just fixed it.

Just to make sure I'm noting the sounds correctly in this dictionary, do phoneme pairs (/p b/) go in slashes or brackets ([])? What about the phonemes articulated differently, such as the alveolar (/n/) and uvular (/ɴ/) nasals? Do I need the entry for <sh> since they've unified the pronunciation of /ʃ ɕ l̥/ to /ɬ/?

The languages have several heterorganic affricates, such as /p͡f/. What transcription(s) should I use for the fricative portion of /p͡ɹ k͡ɹ g͡ɹ/? I used the approximate /ɹ/ in this post because there are many possibilities.