zompist bboard

Zaarin wrote:

Vijay wrote:I find /i e̞ u ɑ/ more likely than /i e̞ o̞ ɑ/.

Some variation of /i e o a/ is pretty common in North America.

Okay, but what about outside of there?

Vijay wrote:

Zaarin wrote:

Vijay wrote:I find /i e̞ u ɑ/ more likely than /i e̞ o̞ ɑ/.

Some variation of /i e o a/ is pretty common in North America.

Okay, but what about outside of there?

Off the top of my head I can't think of any four vowel systems outside of North America, though I'm sure they exist; every Old World language I can think of at the moment is either three vowel, five vowel, or "monster Indo-European craziness" vowel. :p NB, though, that most four-vowel systems I can think of are transcribed with either /o/ or /u/ by convention, as there tends to be a lot of allophonic variation between [o] and in such languages, so one might just as well call them /i e o~u a/.

Four vowel systems are very common .... it's just that it's usually /a i u ə/, so it's balanced. /a i u ə/ ,might even be the most common system in the entire world.

Nah, that would be five-vowel. Old post to the rescue!

The working vowel system is below noting my indecision on the mid front vowel's transcription and that having the mid back rounded vowel (/o̞ ⱺ/; last is non-standard but used) felt strange with three unrounded vowels.

Not nearly as strange as having no back rounded vowels...

Could [e̞ʋ~ᴇʋ ɑʋ] be considered vowels since [ʋ] takes [w]'s place? If so, would they be rounded or unrounded?

yangfiretiger121 wrote:Could [e̞ʋ~ᴇʋ ɑʋ] be considered vowels since [ʋ] takes [w]'s place?

I don't think so, sorry.

Is /[χ]/ more naturally an allophone of /x/ or /h/? Currently, the relationship is /[x→χ]/ adjacent to /ɑ ⱺ/ regardless of syllable coda/mora or another uvular in the same syllable.

It definitely makes more sense to me for [x] to be an allophone of /x/ than of /h/. (Even if the symbols used for phonemes are arbitrary anyway).

This looks like a display issue....some phones can't display the Greek chi symbol so it just appears as a simple x.

No comment/opinion on the question.

I'm on a desktop computer, and I don't see any chi's anywhere on this page.

yangfiretiger121 wrote:Is /χ/ more naturally an allophone of /x/ or /h/? Currently, the relationship is /x→χ/ adjacent to /ɑ ⱺ/ regardless of syllable coda/mora or another uvular in the same syllable.

[χ] seems more likely to be an allophone of /x/ than /h/ if both /x h/ are phonemic; if not, either one of them could have some pretty broad-ranging allophones (as for example in Japanese or Finnish).

@Vijay: The first symbol in yangfiretiger121's post is definitely chi in my browser.

Aha, it is for me, too, if I use Chrome instead of Mozilla!

Revised vowel system:
However, words with a consonant immediately followed by <ru>, such as Grut, maintain the uvulars in front of /ʉ/. Thus, ['ɢᴿut] becomes ['ɢᴿʉt].

You can have syllabic labiodental approximant / labiodentalized as a vowel, e.g. Nias. If there are sequences that behave phonologically like diphthongs (what does this mean for your language?) but are phonetically realized as a vowel followed by a labiodental approximant, I would expect /u/ to also be labiodentalized but these sequences could be analyzable as diphthongs.

Would [y ɔ] be believable transcriptions of [ᴇʋ ɑʋ] as vowels, or would [ᴇʋ ɑʋ] need different transcriptions?

Is [m n→ɴ] adjacent to back vowels a likely assimilation?

Are [pʃ bʒ] better described as bilabial-postalveolar ([p̱ʃ ḇʒ]) or labiodental-postalveolar ([p̪ʃ b̪ʒ])?