The Most Batshit Natlang Competition!

[Pinetree]

You are boring, Victor. Batshit = awesome.

That's the reason my hatred for Esperanto has quietly subsided.

As far as Finlay's years-old comments on Gaelic go, it stande to reason that Scottish is worse in that regard than Irish. Consider these:

oíche - oidhche (night)
[iːhə] - [ɤ̃ɪ̃çə]

donn - donn (brown, dark-haired)
[dˠɔnˠ] - [dˠãũnˠ]

mac - mac (son)
[makʰ] - [maxkʰ]

And in Gàidhlig (scottish gaelic), the <fh> of Fhionnlaidh would be pronounced [h]. [hinlɪ], i think?

[finlay]

No. But there's no "Standard Gaelic" so it might be correct somewhere.

[Hallow XIII]

You are boring, Victor. Batshit = awesome.

That's the reason my hatred for Esperanto has quietly subsided.

As far as Finlay's years-old comments on Gaelic go, it stande to reason that Scottish is worse in that regard than Irish. Consider these:

oíche - oidhche (night)
[iːhə] - [ɤ̃ɪ̃çə]

donn - donn (brown, dark-haired)
[dˠɔnˠ] - [dˠãũnˠ]

mac - mac (son)
[makʰ] - [maxkʰ]

And in Gàidhlig (scottish gaelic), the <fh> of Fhionnlaidh would be pronounced [h]. [hinlɪ], i think?

No. <Fh> is silent except in fhìn/fhéin. As a matter of fact, [hinlɪ] looks very Irish to me. In Gàidhliɡ it would be [ʝũːnˠlɪ] or [ʝɪ̃ũːnˠlɪ].

[Pinetree]

You are boring, Victor. Batshit = awesome.

That's the reason my hatred for Esperanto has quietly subsided.

As far as Finlay's years-old comments on Gaelic go, it stande to reason that Scottish is worse in that regard than Irish. Consider these:

oíche - oidhche (night)
[iːhə] - [ɤ̃ɪ̃çə]

donn - donn (brown, dark-haired)
[dˠɔnˠ] - [dˠãũnˠ]

mac - mac (son)
[makʰ] - [maxkʰ]

And in Gàidhlig (scottish gaelic), the <fh> of Fhionnlaidh would be pronounced [h]. [hinlɪ], i think?

No. <Fh> is silent except in fhìn/fhéin. As a matter of fact, [hinlɪ] looks very Irish to me. In Gàidhliɡ it would be [ʝũːnˠlɪ] or [ʝɪ̃ũːnˠlɪ].

I sit corrected.

[Drydic]

You are boring, Victor. Batshit = awesome.

That's the reason my hatred for Esperanto has quietly subsided.

As far as Finlay's years-old comments on Gaelic go, it stande to reason that Scottish is worse in that regard than Irish. Consider these:

oíche - oidhche (night)
[iːhə] - [ɤ̃ɪ̃çə]

donn - donn (brown, dark-haired)
[dˠɔnˠ] - [dˠãũnˠ]

mac - mac (son)
[makʰ] - [maxkʰ]

And in Gàidhlig (scottish gaelic), the <fh> of Fhionnlaidh would be pronounced [h]. [hinlɪ], i think?

No. <Fh> is silent except in fhìn/fhéin. As a matter of fact, [hinlɪ] looks very Irish to me. In Gàidhliɡ it would be [ʝũːnˠlɪ] or [ʝɪ̃ũːnˠlɪ].

I sit corrected.

YOU WILL STAND WHEN CORRECTED, CYLON SCUM

[Pinetree]

You are boring, Victor. Batshit = awesome.

That's the reason my hatred for Esperanto has quietly subsided.

As far as Finlay's years-old comments on Gaelic go, it stande to reason that Scottish is worse in that regard than Irish. Consider these:

oíche - oidhche (night)
[iːhə] - [ɤ̃ɪ̃çə]

donn - donn (brown, dark-haired)
[dˠɔnˠ] - [dˠãũnˠ]

mac - mac (son)
[makʰ] - [maxkʰ]

And in Gàidhlig (scottish gaelic), the <fh> of Fhionnlaidh would be pronounced [h]. [hinlɪ], i think?

No. <Fh> is silent except in fhìn/fhéin. As a matter of fact, [hinlɪ] looks very Irish to me. In Gàidhliɡ it would be [ʝũːnˠlɪ] or [ʝɪ̃ũːnˠlɪ].

I sit corrected.

YOU WILL STAND WHEN CORRECTED, CYLON SCUM

B̳̼̯̤̞̹̤̉̍ͧ̏ͪ̾̈́̕Ẏ͍͙͙͐̈́̕ ̵͚̙͔̞̳͛ͯ̆Y͋ͫ̑ͬ͝O̲͔̅̀̕U͎̭̲͙ͥͣȒ̷̙̮̬̣̲̱͖̔ ͙̺̙̩Cͯͦ͒͡O͖̗̻͎̗̺̞͛͜M̸ͪ̃̃͂ͣ̑̚M̵̩̜͈̰͇̋̏A̬͓̼̦̗̻̻ͭN͕̙̱̗̥ͫ͌̊̇͑ͥ̆D͉̘̪̩͗ͦ͟

[jmcd]

You are boring, Victor. Batshit = awesome.

That's the reason my hatred for Esperanto has quietly subsided.

As far as Finlay's years-old comments on Gaelic go, it stande to reason that Scottish is worse in that regard than Irish. Consider these:

oíche - oidhche (night)
[iːhə] - [ɤ̃ɪ̃çə]

donn - donn (brown, dark-haired)
[dˠɔnˠ] - [dˠãũnˠ]

mac - mac (son)
[makʰ] - [maxkʰ]

Why the nasalisation on oidhche? I always seen it as /əiçə/. I could certainly see the first element of the diphthong as being ɤ or o but nothing nasalised.

[Mednij]

Least insane: Some Oghuz turkic language, like Azeri or Turkish. They're pretty regular grammatically, have little or no exceptions, have a regular orthography, and the phonology is mostly simple (vowel harmony is quite un-insane).

Most insane: Sumerian. Not only is the orthography basically a logographic system trying to be a syllabary, its verbs and adjectives are closed word classes, so a majority of such meanings have to be formed by idiomatic expressions.

[finlay]

basically a logographic system trying to be a syllabary

初めまして

Also all the written languages of that period were like that. Egyptian springs to mind.

[Hallow XIII]

You are boring, Victor. Batshit = awesome.

That's the reason my hatred for Esperanto has quietly subsided.

As far as Finlay's years-old comments on Gaelic go, it stande to reason that Scottish is worse in that regard than Irish. Consider these:

oíche - oidhche (night)
[iːhə] - [ɤ̃ɪ̃çə]

donn - donn (brown, dark-haired)
[dˠɔnˠ] - [dˠãũnˠ]

mac - mac (son)
[makʰ] - [maxkʰ]

Why the nasalisation on oidhche? I always seen it as /əiçə/. I could certainly see the first element of the diphthong as being ɤ or o but nothing nasalised.

I got that one from Akerbeltz. I had my doubts too, but I went and looked at myself in the mirror while I repeatedly said the word, and lo, nostril contraction. So I decided to roll with it. Of course, my pronunciation is an amalgam of several people's dialects that I've copied, but I figured when Akerbeltz says so it's got to be true.

[WeepingElf]

B̳̼̯̤̞̹̤̉̍ͧ̏ͪ̾̈́̕Ẏ͍͙͙͐̈́̕ ̵͚̙͔̞̳͛ͯ̆Y͋ͫ̑ͬ͝O̲͔̅̀̕U͎̭̲͙ͥͣȒ̷̙̮̬̣̲̱͖̔ ͙̺̙̩Cͯͦ͒͡O͖̗̻͎̗̺̞͛͜M̸ͪ̃̃͂ͣ̑̚M̵̩̜͈̰͇̋̏A̬͓̼̦̗̻̻ͭN͕̙̱̗̥ͫ͌̊̇͑ͥ̆D͉̘̪̩͗ͦ͟

How is that pronounced? Or do all those diacritics cancel each other out?

[2+3 clusivity]

I repeatedly said the word, and lo, nostril contraction.

Wait what? That is NOT the same thing as nasalization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasalisation

Compare nasalization: "is the production of a sound while the velum is lowered, so that some air escapes through the nose during the production of the sound by the mouth."

With Nareal(ized?) fricative: "Besides nasalized oral fricatives, there are true nasal fricatives, called nareal fricatives, sometimes produced by people with speech defects. That is, the turbulence in the airflow characteristic of fricatives is produced not in the mouth but in the nasal cavity. A tilde plus trema diacritic is used for this in the Extensions to the IPA: [n͋] is an alveolar nareal fricative, with no airflow out of the mouth, while [v͋] is an oral fricative (a [v]) with simultaneous nareal frication. No known natural language makes use of nareal consonants."

[Nortaneous]

Am I the only one who thinks Tibetan orthography isn't actually that bad? I'm glad there's just one way to read a word.

Tibetan seems pretty regular. Preinitials drop, plosive+r is t`, n d drop and front back vowels, and that's it.

As far as Finlay's years-old comments on Gaelic go, it stande to reason that Scottish is worse in that regard than Irish. Consider these:

mac - mac (son)
[makʰ] - [maxkʰ]

Fortis consonants in ScG are preaspirated in certain contexts. That's not bad at all.

[Hallow XIII]

I never said it was bad per se. It's one of the reasons why I prefer Scottish Gaelic over Irish actually (the others being back unrounded vowels and the continued existence of word-final [ɣ]). It's just that for the purpose of pronouncing a written text, this sort of thing can catch you off guard. I still don't properly know how to do it with t, especially since that lovely consonant can take either [x] or [ʃ] as its preaspiration phoneme.

[finlay]

Similarly, ScG has stronger devoicing of lenis stops, which usually leads to transcribing d and t as [t] and [t_h]. This has the effect of making the transcription look weird but because it's systemic, it doesn't make the spelling more complicated. What makes the spelling more complicated is that Irish has undergone spelling reform where Scottish hasn't.

[Hallow XIII]

you are stupid

Yes, on second thought, that really isn't so much evidence of nasalization as it is evidence of my nostrils moving when I speak. Hang on, I'll go ask.

*heads off to Fòram na Gàidhlig*

[Hallow XIII]

The person responsible for the dictionary entry has defended himself.

The upshot: it's a dialectal thing with the usual weirdness candidates of Lewis and Skye being among them as well as some other western dialects. Elsewhere it's rarer.

EDIT: On another note, is there an equivalent of this for conlangs?

[Pinetree]

B̳̼̯̤̞̹̤̉̍ͧ̏ͪ̾̈́̕Ẏ͍͙͙͐̈́̕ ̵͚̙͔̞̳͛ͯ̆Y͋ͫ̑ͬ͝O̲͔̅̀̕U͎̭̲͙ͥͣȒ̷̙̮̬̣̲̱͖̔ ͙̺̙̩Cͯͦ͒͡O͖̗̻͎̗̺̞͛͜M̸ͪ̃̃͂ͣ̑̚M̵̩̜͈̰͇̋̏A̬͓̼̦̗̻̻ͭN͕̙̱̗̥ͫ͌̊̇͑ͥ̆D͉̘̪̩͗ͦ͟

How is that pronounced? Or do all those diacritics cancel each other out?

They work in concert to indicate metallic voicing.

[WeepingElf]

B̳̼̯̤̞̹̤̉̍ͧ̏ͪ̾̈́̕Ẏ͍͙͙͐̈́̕ ̵͚̙͔̞̳͛ͯ̆Y͋ͫ̑ͬ͝O̲͔̅̀̕U͎̭̲͙ͥͣȒ̷̙̮̬̣̲̱͖̔ ͙̺̙̩Cͯͦ͒͡O͖̗̻͎̗̺̞͛͜M̸ͪ̃̃͂ͣ̑̚M̵̩̜͈̰͇̋̏A̬͓̼̦̗̻̻ͭN͕̙̱̗̥ͫ͌̊̇͑ͥ̆D͉̘̪̩͗ͦ͟

How is that pronounced? Or do all those diacritics cancel each other out?

They work in concert to indicate metallic voicing.

OF COURSE. How could I miss that?

[Pinetree]

B̳̼̯̤̞̹̤̉̍ͧ̏ͪ̾̈́̕Ẏ͍͙͙͐̈́̕ ̵͚̙͔̞̳͛ͯ̆Y͋ͫ̑ͬ͝O̲͔̅̀̕U͎̭̲͙ͥͣȒ̷̙̮̬̣̲̱͖̔ ͙̺̙̩Cͯͦ͒͡O͖̗̻͎̗̺̞͛͜M̸ͪ̃̃͂ͣ̑̚M̵̩̜͈̰͇̋̏A̬͓̼̦̗̻̻ͭN͕̙̱̗̥ͫ͌̊̇͑ͥ̆D͉̘̪̩͗ͦ͟

How is that pronounced? Or do all those diacritics cancel each other out?

They work in concert to indicate metallic voicing.

OF COURSE. How could I miss that?

And if you layer on more diacritics (L̸̶̡̨͕͇̦̤͇͗ͮͭ̿ͫi̙̦͓̦͙̪̣͉̾̀̾ͮ̒́̕ͅk̷ͭͨͤ̓́͊͏͏̺̻̺̯e̸̩̯̖̟͇̱̙̗̦͍̯̹̰̩̳̒̒̒̂̕͢͡ͅ ̘̦̫̳̰͙̪̺̊̽̏̊̔͐̀ͭͣ͒̌͌̓̿̾ͪ͢t̢̡͉̝̭͍͔̬̞͌̐̏̍̒ͪ́͝ͅh̵̛̛̗̰̮͎̬̞͂̋̒ͭ͋̀̌͋͢ȉ̻̠̭͎̞̬̳͉̩͚̳̹ͩͥͫ̃͠͠s̶̝̤̟͈̖͎̻͎̰̻̖̲̖͎͓̠̤̉̍̿̒), it indicates eldritch voicing.

[Tropylium]

Just rereading the thing I linked earlier, I saw this:

Another potential source of vowel elision, which still exists marginally as part of
the synchronic phonology of Aymara, is metrically conditioned vowel deletion. There are
a few suffixes which seem to be neither dominant nor recessive. If they attach to a twosyllable
sequence, the sequence-final vowel is kept, but if the base is three syllables, the
vowel is lost (p. 199)

so a) there are suffixes that baleet vowels on their stems, b) there are suffixes that leave the stem vowels alone, and c) there are suffixes that delete or leave alone vowels depending on the number of vowels in the root.

really, Aymara, what the everloving fuck?

Hang on, this is supposed to be batshit? Pretty sure we have the exact same categories in Finnish, plus also d) suffixes that modify the stem vowel in a systematical way (possibly dependant on the number of vowels in the root), e) suffixes that modify the stem vowel in an unsystematic lexically conditioned way, f) suffixes that delete or leave certain stem vowels while leaving others be, g) suffixes that generally delete stem vowels aside from some lexically conditioned exceptions, h) suffixes that delete all stem vowels as well as all consonants beyond the first CVC unit, i) suffixes that delete all stem vowels and certain but not all medial consonants…

This all happens quite normally when any given suffix remains in regular use thruout several millennia with fossilized-but-transparent formations retaining older suffixation patterns that have fallen out of use, or older suffixes reflecting alternations that newer ones do not. I'm willing to bet that you can find at least four of these sort of categories in every single Uralic language (if not every agglutinative language that shows a dash of fusionality).

Re poll: I'm going to suggest PIE.

(Least complex? The vote for something Oghuz Turkic sounds reasonable.)

[Drydic]

It's not really fair (either to PIE or to its competitors) to allow PIE as a 'contestant'. Just since we can't know one way or another how much of its weirdness was dialectal or pan-language. And which stage do you mean anyways?

[Hallow XIII]

Also, it specifically says "Natlang" in the title. PIE, for all it's worth, qualifies more as a *kondn̥ǵʰwéh₂s, don't you think?

[Drydic]

No, I don't actually, since all the evidence we have at this time screams that it did, in fact, exist.

[Hallow XIII]

I meant as in "we have a pretty good guess of what PIE was like, but as the language died out long before any sort of tangible evidence could be produced we can't be sure we're not getting some things really wrong, and we're probably messing up dialects and time depth, so to a native PIE speaker it would likely seem like something close but not quite what he speaks".