Seeking help in building my conlang

[Megandia]

So...precisely what the title says. I would like some help and input in creating one of my conlangs. I want it to be natural and feel real. I have some basics of verbs down, but I'm unsure about them. I've already changed a few things up. Also, I would consider myself a babe in conlanging. I've been doing it my whole life (ok, overstatement, but for about 10-15 years, but that takes up the majority of my life so...) but I haven't had much learning in linguistics. I took a class in college and wanted to take more, but they dropped those classes from lack of interest. I'm slowly becoming familiar with IPA, but I'm still learning. And any help with correct terms would be greatly appreciated.

Anyway, here is some of what I have. I'm going on the premise that my language, which right now is just known as Elven (Yes, a typical language for the elves.) is restrictive in word order, similar to English and German and such. It is a VSO language. The pronouns do not change, however. There is only one term for I/me, he/she/him/her, etc. To determine if something is the receiver of an action you use different prepositions. Example: Give it to me = Gana je a e Gana = Give/to give Je = it/its a = to e = I/me/mine

I don't know if I have too many tenses. I figured they would have a few because they are such long lived people. So they would have a past form to talk about things hundreds of years ago as opposed to events that happened only a few years or months ago. I think for now this is where I need the biggest help. Tenses and aspects. I guess first I'll post the different tenses and then another where I conjugate a few verbs.

The tenses and aspects are as follows:

tenses:
Post-hodiernal future – after today
Remote future – distant future
Hodiernal- later today

Pre-hodiernal- before today
Remote past- more than a few years ago
Hodiernal- earlier today
Historical- action/state is part of a past event

Non-past- present or future

Aspect:
Perfect- action as a whole
Imperfective/continuous- unfolding, continuous
Inchoative/inceptive- new action, new state, dynamic
Frequentative- repeated action


To note: The historical past is used exclusively in writings now. It would be what they write their myths, legends, and histories in.

I also want to note that I've been heavily influenced by Japanese for the pronunciation. Which I should add in the next post.

[StrangerCoug]

The tenses for actions earlier today and actions later today have the same name—did you mean that?

I don't find having both a non-past and different kinds of future tenses plausible because of the overlap. I'd rework the non-past into the present, and then you'd have a (nearly) symmetrical system. If you still think the number of tenses is overkill, you can collapse the "earlier today" hodiernal/pre-hodiernal and the "later today"/post-hodiernal distinctions, leaving a remote past/near past/present/near future/distant future temporal distinction.

The aspects are fine as far as I know.

[Megandia]

Ok. Now for more! I'm sorry for any incorrect terms! Right now my alphabet needs to be updated with some IPA figures for better understanding.

I should have put the phonemic inventory in my first post. Right now it's 'simple'.

The vowels are just
a e i o u /a Ɛ i ɔ u/
However three vowel combinations act like one. Almost diphthongs
ai ei ou /ai ɛi ɔu/

Consonants
m f v t d /m f v t d/
s z n d /s z [dz] n d/
l r sh zh ch /l r ʃ Ʒ tʃ/
zhj j y g /ʑˤ dƷ j g/
ng h ts /ŋ h ts/

[dz] is an allophone of /z/ but only in the initial position. The /r/ is more like a /ɾ/ but that is so small on my screen, so I just used /r/. While I have /ts/, I have yet to use it or /ŋ/.

Words are formed basically as C-V-n/l/v Only the consonants /l/, /n/, or /v/ can end a syllable. Right now I call them ending consonants when writing out grammar. At first I only had /n/ and /l/ but I added /v/. So at the moment I do not have any words that have a /v/ ending consonant.

Enough of my horrible attempt at explaining! I said I'd put the conjugation of verbs and I have yet to do so! Ok, here we go!

TENSE
INFIX
EXAMPLE OF safa & tese & lin & tal & fe

Post-hodiernal future – after today
C-u-[-C]
Suava / tueze / luin / tual / vue

Remote future – distant future
CV-l-[-C]
Salva / telze / lil / tal / vel

Hodiernal- later today
C-C-u
safua / tesue / linu / talu / fu



Pre-hodiernal- before today
C–e/ar-
serafa / tarese / larin / teral / fare

Remote past- more than a few years ago
C-C-e/an
safena / tesane / linan / talen / fane

Hodiernal- earlier today
CV-eɛ/a-[-C]
saneva / tenaze / linan / tanel / vena

Historical- action/state is part of a past event
C-e/ar- CV-e/an [All vowels are changed to either ɛ or a depending on the first vowel. e/i -> a, a/o/u -> e]
serefeen / tarasaan / laranan / terelen / faan



Non-past- present or future
Dictionary form
Safa/ tese / lin / tal / fe


Ok. Man. I had to edit everything after copying and pasting it from a table in word. That was difficult! I hope it's easy to understand. Basically, Elven verbs are comprised of two 'syllables'. (Elven syllables are a bit different than normal. A syllable would be considered anything from just a to saioun (I just used saioun as an example. I haven't made anything like that, yet, but that would be considered one syllable in Elven, but two in English.) I tried to stick with keeping them three syllables or less as verbs, except for the Historical tense.

StrangerCoug, the non-past should probably just be present then. I use it more for that purpose, anyway. Hodiernal just means relating to the same day. One is relating to earlier in the day and the other later. I was trying to find closer terms but in (the dreaded) Wikipedia page, those tenses were both listed as Hodiernal. You are right that I should find different terms for them, otherwise they'd be confusing. To be honest, I just sorta wanted them in there, but I can change it up so that it's more natural. If I collapse those, then could I use the 'non-past' as the 'Hodiernal' tenses, as well? Would it give me a reason to have a non-past, or just change it to present.

I have another chart where I conjugate the tenses in but I wasn't sure if you guys wanted all that (I'll add my ramblings in as a file.) Those are mostly suffixes except for Inchoactive/inceptive and Frequentative. Inch/Inc is a prefix (I figured it might have once been a helping verb that eventually shortened and prefixed itself onto the verb) and Frequentative is a bit more difficult. ie Safa -> savazafa.


Also, if I don't respond for a few days, don't worry. I have to go to a cafe to get internet and sometimes I can only go once a week or two. So I apologize right now for my late replies.

EDIT: I cleaned up this post. All the strikethroughs were ugly.

[paman]

For "later today" you could use the term "hodiernal future", and for "earlier today" you could use the term "hodiernal past".


Since you describe the "perfective" as "completed action", I guess you mean "perfect" or "completive":

Past perfective: The man ate the bird.
Past perfect: The man had eaten the bird.
Past completive: The man finished eating the bird.

Future perfective: The man will eat the bird.
Future perfect: The man will have eaten the bird.
Future completive: The man will finish eating the bird.

[Megandia]

For "later today" you could use the term "hodiernal future", and for "earlier today" you could use the term "hodiernal past".


Since you describe the "perfective" as "completed action", I guess you mean "perfect":

Past perfective: The man ate the bird.
Past perfect: The man had eaten the bird.

Future perfective: The man will eat the bird.
Future perfect: The man will have eaten the bird.

The aspects are something else I need to work on. I'm not sure if I should add more or expand some that I have. Oh, and this adds to a general linguistic question, are perfect and perfective the same? I cannot find a definitive answer anywhere else. I've read that they are and that they aren't. From your examples, I must be confusing the two. I think so. I had used serafi (the Post-hodiernal perfective form) to mean "had been given". Should that be considered just perfect, then?

(small tidbit you may or may not find interesting, I came up with the verb Safa= to give, from a name I created a long time ago, Serafinen. I decided her name meant child given to me. Nen would be child, and serafi would mean 'had been given' or just 'given'. Then I broke that down to Safa being the dictionary form, so to speak. And from that derived how to conjugate a past form and aspect.)


EDIT: I took so long to answer you edited it before I finished, ha ha. I have the wrong description, then, of perfective. I'm using it as perfect, and definitely not as a truly 'completed action'. I will adjust that right away!

I would suppose that would mean my at the moment 'non-past/dictionary' form would default into the perfective.

[احمکي ارش-ھجن]

Wikipedia in regards to Perfective vs. Perfect: "The terms perfective and perfect are confused or interchanged in many grammatical descriptions. A perfect is a grammatical form used to describe a past event with present relevance, or a present state resulting from a past situation." Example: I have eaten. I ate and it has present relevance, and I'm full. Or perhaps, I have been to France. It is a part of my experiences now.

A perfective describes an event in its entirety. Example: I ate yesterday. It has no present relevance, because it is viewed as a whole.

As for your alphabet and sounds, It is highly recommended that you use the International Phonetic Alphabet, especially in regards to that ZHJ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA

[Megandia]

Wikipedia in regards to Perfective vs. Perfect: "The terms perfective and perfect are confused or interchanged in many grammatical descriptions. A perfect is a grammatical form used to describe a past event with present relevance, or a present state resulting from a past situation." Example: I have eaten. I ate and it has present relevance, and I'm full. Or perhaps, I have been to France. It is a part of my experiences now.

A perfective describes an event in its entirety. Example: I ate yesterday. It has no present relevance, because it is viewed as a whole.

As for your alphabet and sounds, It is highly recommended that you use the International Phonetic Alphabet, especially in regards to that ZHJ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA

I found my textbook from my linguistics class and took a look. I changed my alphabet up to reflect the actual sounds. And you and the other guy were right. I mixed up perfective and perfect. So my 'perfective' aspect is actually 'perfect'.

Here is the updated sounds:

Vowels:
i ɛ u ɔ a ai/aj ɛi/e ɔu/aw

Consonants:
m f v t d s z [dz] n d l r ʃ Ʒ tʃ ʑˤ dƷ j g ŋ h ts

Now, I have yet to use the /ŋ/ or the /ts/. So I'm not sure if they'll stay. And the [dz] is an allophone of /z/ in initial position. The /r/ is an alveolar tap but the symbol for it is so small on these forums it looked distorted to me.

What I was trying to describe with zh was Ʒ. Now, I'm still unsure about ɮ as zhj. It's not entirely correct. Zhj is supposed to be like Ʒ but pronounced deeper in the throat, almost in the pharynx or larynx. When I pronounce it I can feel it vibrating kinda far down. It may be a kind of mix between ɮ and ʐ. Though the ʐ to me sounds too similar to Ʒ. This was figured out thanks to אשׁהג׳ר אהמךּ!

[Megandia]

My next step is to figure out what they call their language so I don't have to keep calling it the stereotypical name of Elven. :/

My next problem is with nouns. Right now I have four genders expanded into seven categories. Each noun is assigned a gender and whether it is animate or inanimate. The genders are: male, female, neuter, and holy/spiritual/supernatural. I haven't decided on a set name for this last category. They are a highly religious people and so I decided they would probably have a separate gender for things that are considered to be holy or spiritual. Things like a temple, certain emotions like love, and even some nouns like a kiss would be considered 'holy'.

The genders would be fairly straightforward. Animals would be either male or female depending on whether it is apparent. Like some birds, some deer, ect. And of course they are animate if they're alive. Meat from these animals would be considered male but inanimate. Parts of the body would default to male animate if talking about them in general. But if you are a woman and say 'my hands', 'hands' would be feminine.

Certain geological forms are considered neuter and animate. A river, a tree (plants in general), a storm, etc. Small animals are considered neuter and animate. Things that come from neuter nouns would be considered neuter inanimate. Such as wood, scales, leaves, ect. However, things made from said things are male inanimate. Furniture, a house, tools, swords, etc are male inanimate. Meat from these small animals would be considered neuter inanimate. So fish, rabbit, squirrel, snake, bugs, etc that would be food are neuter.

Things that would be holy/spiritual would be their god, their prince (They don't have a King, in title only. They call their 'King' a Prince because they think of him as chosen by their true 'King', their god). I haven't thought out more than those examples. Things relating to their god or prince would be considered holy inanimate. Certain concepts would be considered holy inanimate as well, while others would be neuter.


A noun's gender is determined typically by the last consonant or two. It doesn't matter what the ending vowel is.

For example, arain and aramɛn are both considered holy inanimate because the last consonant is an n. But they have differing vowel sounds. ( I don't have a huge pool of words to chose from, just yet.)

Here is my current chart for genders:

Gender Ending consonant(s)
Male-animate -fe, -me, -che, -te,
Female-animate -se, -ze, -she
Neuter-animate -ye, -ge, -je
Male-inanimate -v, -re,
Neuter-inanimate -geve, -ve,
Holy-animate -le, -l, -n
Holy-inanimate -lte, -nde, -n, -zhe

The ɛ is merely a placeholder vowel. In a noun it would be replaced by any other vowel. In my notes I have shortened them to mA, fA, nA, etc, to save time typing or writing.

Some examples:

fish nA - munaye
fish scales nI - murogeva
fish cooked for a meal mI- munageva

The endings for each are: fish - ye , fish scales - geve , and cooked fish - geve

I haven't settled on a system for adjectives. I want them to match the gender of the noun. However I can't decide on how to do that. Should they have a separate endings for each? Or somethings I played around with is that they take on the exact same ending as the noun but with the final vowel in the base adjective used in place of whatever vowel is in the noun? As in aralta savalta, munageva rolvagava, arayi finzhuyu, and so forth.

Does what I have so far seem plausible? Like a workable system? My idea is that male and female animate nouns can switch back and forth between genders, while the others tend to be stuck. I may have gone overboard like I'm afraid I did with my tenses.

[احمکي ارش-ھجن]

Wikipedia in regards to Perfective vs. Perfect: "The terms perfective and perfect are confused or interchanged in many grammatical descriptions. A perfect is a grammatical form used to describe a past event with present relevance, or a present state resulting from a past situation." Example: I have eaten. I ate and it has present relevance, and I'm full. Or perhaps, I have been to France. It is a part of my experiences now.

A perfective describes an event in its entirety. Example: I ate yesterday. It has no present relevance, because it is viewed as a whole.

As for your alphabet and sounds, It is highly recommended that you use the International Phonetic Alphabet, especially in regards to that ZHJ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA

I found my textbook from my linguistics class and took a look. I changed my alphabet up to reflect the actual sounds. And you and the other guy were right. I mixed up perfective and perfect. So my 'perfective' aspect is actually 'perfect'.

Here is the updated alphabet:

Vowels:
i ɛ u ɔ a ai/aj ɛi/e ɔu/aw (The last three vowels aren't truly diphthongs, but they are treated as one vowel.)

Consonants:
m f v t d s z dz n d l r ʃ Ʒ tʃ ɮ dƷ j g ŋ h ts

Now, I have yet to use the ŋ or the ts. So I'm not sure if they'll stay. And the dz isn't necessarily a consonant in itself, it's how the z is pronounced at the beginning of words. The r is really more of a ɾ, a kind of a tap on the back of your teeth. A dental r. But the ɾ symbol seems to barely show up on my computer.

What I was trying to describe with zh was Ʒ. Now, I'm still unsure about ɮ as zhj. It's not entirely correct. Zhj is supposed to be like Ʒ but pronounced deeper in the throat, almost in the pharynx or larynx. When I pronounce it I can feel it vibrating kinda far down. It may be a kind of mix between ɮ and ʐ. Though the ʐ to me sounds too similar to Ʒ.

You describe /dz/ as an allophone of /z/. So it must be that [dz] is an allophone of /z/ word-initially?
As for ZHJ, maybe it's a pharyngealized voiced lateral fricative? Or maybe its a pharyngealized voiced alveolo-palatal fricative?
As far as whether it's lateral; its a mater of whether you're holding your tongue at the roof of your mouth and pushing air through the side of your tongue.

[Particles the Greek]

Just a couple of minor points about terminology:

Here is the updated alphabet:

Properly speaking, it's a phonemic inventory; the alphabet is the set of symbols you write it with, unless you're writing your conlang directly in the IPA

(The last three vowels aren't truly diphthongs, but they are treated as one vowel.)

It's another rather trivial distinction, If they're sequences of two vowels which together form a vocalic nucleus, surely they are diphthongs? Unless you mean that one of the vowels is actually a semivowel or a glide.

[Megandia]

You describe /dz/ as an allophone of /z/. So it must be that [dz] is an allophone of /z/ word-initially?
As for ZHJ, maybe it's a pharyngealized voiced lateral fricative? Or maybe its a pharyngealized voiced alveolo-palatal fricative?
As far as whether it's lateral; its a mater of whether you're holding your tongue at the roof of your mouth and pushing air through the side of your tongue.

Yes, that's right. Man, I feel so silly right now not putting that in there. And a little beginner question. Writing /dz/ as [dz] makes it an allophone? Is that the correct way to write those, then?

And I think the pharyngealized voiced alveolo-palatal fricative is right. Boy, that's a mouthful in and of itself! I think that's part of the reason I put off studying the correct terms...they were so long. But that's finally caught up to me as everyone is pointing out. So that would mean what I have there should be replaced with a ʑˤ? I couldn't find a ʑ with tilde or swung dash. I'd rather use that because it's the only one pharyngealized. But I suppose that leaves room to convert others to that so he's not the lonely sound! Though I'd imagine that there used to be more but as the years went on, they dropped them in favor of easier sounds. In fact one of the aspects came from a verb starting with a ʑˤ but I changed it a dʒ for easier pronunciation.

Just a couple of minor points about terminology:

Here is the updated alphabet:

Properly speaking, it's a phonemic inventory; the alphabet is the set of symbols you write it with, unless you're writing your conlang directly in the IPA

(The last three vowels aren't truly diphthongs, but they are treated as one vowel.)

It's another rather trivial distinction, If they're sequences of two vowels which together form a vocalic nucleus, surely they are diphthongs? Unless you mean that one of the vowels is actually a semivowel or a glide.

Ahh, true true. I warned you guys I didn't know correct terms. Thank you for telling me the right one! I haven't created their writing, yet. I'm debating whether I should have it be a logographic or not. So I suppose right now I write it in IPA.

I think I was getting ahead of myself with the diphthongs. Or maybe they should be diphthongs. I had thought them as vowels that would be written separately, but in determining syllables were considered one vowel. Though this is a strange idea I may throw out. A basic word would be C-V-C-V or C-V etc, and normally a ɛ i ɔ u ai ɛi ɔu would all constitute as one V. Even though the last three are two are still vowels sounded separately. Similar to Wheelock's Latin vowels eu and ui.

I'm preparing to post some aspects in a bit. I apologize again for the lapse in my responses!

[احمکي ارش-ھجن]

@Megandia
Yes, phonemes are written in / / and allophones in [ ].
I think /ʑˤ/ is rather unique, I don't think it exists in any natural language. You should probably also have it's voiceless counterpart and it would be fine.
Tilde is for nasal vowels and swung dash is both for velarized/pharyngealized consonants.

Why not just make your syllable structure CV(i, u)(C), where the bracket means that a word may have it, but is not obligatory of all words. You may have at minimum CV or at maximum CViC or CVuC.
You can't treat the last three as one vowel. But you can make them optional, like as explained above.

[vtardif]

I think I was getting ahead of myself with the diphthongs. Or maybe they should be diphthongs. I had thought them as vowels that would be written separately, but in determining syllables were considered one vowel. Though this is a strange idea I may throw out. A basic word would be C-V-C-V or C-V etc, and normally a ɛ i ɔ u ai ɛi ɔu would all constitute as one V. Even though the last three are two are still vowels sounded separately. Similar to Wheelock's Latin vowels eu and ui.

What you're describing isn't at all a strange idea, it's literally the definition of a diphthong. What araceli was saying was that you said these were 'not true diphthongs' and described something that absolutely is a true diphthong. Which is to say, you're okay.

Why not just make your syllable structure CV(i, u)(C), where the bracket means that a word may have it, but is not obligatory of all words. You may have at minimum CV or at maximum CViC or CVuC.
You can't treat the last three as one vowel. But you can make them optional, like as explained above.

No, it's absolutely reasonable to treat them as one vowel in the context of timing. This is what a diphthong is.
And your suggestion to fix it is a more complex yet less accurate analysis. C{a ɛ i ɔ u ai ɛi ɔu} is not equivalent to C{a ɛ i ɔ u}(i u), because the set of diphthongs in the former is more constrained - /Cii/ is valid in the latter but not the former, for example.

[finlay]

My one tip is either come up with a proper romanization or don't bother using the open-e and open-o symbols (which I can't write on my phone) - it's enough to write at the top of the page "e stands for /E/" and then just use e instead. A lot of the time people do this with IPA transcriptions as well as romanizations, especially when you have a five-monophthong system like this.

Basically, I think you're making it too hard for yourself if you always have to type those two characters instead of e and o.

[Megandia]

No, it's absolutely reasonable to treat them as one vowel in the context of timing. This is what a diphthong is.
And your suggestion to fix it is a more complex yet less accurate analysis. C{a ɛ i ɔ u ai ɛi ɔu} is not equivalent to C{a ɛ i ɔ u}(i u), because the set of diphthongs in the former is more constrained - /Cii/ is valid in the latter but not the former, for example.

I also had a few nouns that are CVVC that don't have a diphthong in them. They aren't common, though. So a maximum could be more like, CVVC. The names don't fit word constraints, though. They are typically long. One example is Charuzen'agel. That was actually the first name and word I thought up for this language. That was over eleven years ago, though. I've since added some more names and 'words' but I've only recently started trying to piece a language from them. The words and terms have been relatively 'short' while names have tended to be longer. They tend to be statements about the person and combinations of verbs and nouns and such, so that could be a reason for their lengths.

My one tip is either come up with a proper romanization or don't bother using the open-e and open-o symbols (which I can't write on my phone) - it's enough to write at the top of the page "e stands for /E/" and then just use e instead. A lot of the time people do this with IPA transcriptions as well as romanizations, especially when you have a five-monophthong system like this.

Basically, I think you're making it too hard for yourself if you always have to type those two characters instead of e and o.

I am actually relieved from your comment. I'll do that then eventually. I don't have the time at this moment, maybe. I'll continue writing just the regular vowels, now. And I'll keep writing ʒ as zh and ʑˤ as zhj. It looks prettier on paper to me. And it's easier for me type out instead of keeping the character thing open on my screen! So off to set a romanization and sound equivalent!

[احمکي ارش-ھجن]

Then there's the issue of your phonemic inventory. I know you're a beginner, but these are still things to consider.
It seems rather unnatural to have a VOICED lateral fricative, without its voiceless counterpart. Also having a pharyngealized version of a alveolo-palatal fricative is weird when you don't have a normal one and also no pharyngealized voiceless counterpart. A lack of an alveolopalatal consonant could be solved by having the palatization be allophonic, such as zh before /j/ or before /i/ perhaps. But that still needs to solve the issue of the pharyngealization.

Of course, if your not going for naturalistic, disregard this.

[Megandia]

Then there's the issue of your phonemic inventory. I know you're a beginner, but these are still things to consider.
It seems rather unnatural to have a VOICED lateral fricative, without its voiceless counterpart. Also having a pharyngealized version of a alveolo-palatal fricative is weird when you don't have a normal one and also no pharyngealized voiceless counterpart. A lack of an alveolopalatal consonant could be solved by having the palatization be allophonic, such as zh before /j/ or before /i/ perhaps. But that still needs to solve the issue of the pharyngealization.

Of course, if your not going for naturalistic, disregard this.

I used ʑˤ in exchange for ɮ. However, I was going over my lexicon and I realized out of all of the words I have so far, only one uses that sound. So I may just take it out. I want this language to be natural so if having one sound while not having it's voiceless counterpart, then I think it's best to not have it. I tried to sound out a voiceless version and I didn't have much luck.

But taking it out leaves me with some noobish sounding consonants. I'll go back through and I'll see what I can do about revamping it. And still sound natural!

[احمکي ارش-ھجن]

Then there's the issue of your phonemic inventory. I know you're a beginner, but these are still things to consider.
It seems rather unnatural to have a VOICED lateral fricative, without its voiceless counterpart. Also having a pharyngealized version of a alveolo-palatal fricative is weird when you don't have a normal one and also no pharyngealized voiceless counterpart. A lack of an alveolopalatal consonant could be solved by having the palatization be allophonic, such as zh before /j/ or before /i/ perhaps. But that still needs to solve the issue of the pharyngealization.

Of course, if your not going for naturalistic, disregard this.

I used ʑˤ in exchange for ɮ. However, I was going over my lexicon and I realized out of all of the words I have so far, only one uses that sound. So I may just take it out. I want this language to be natural so if having one sound while not having it's voiceless counterpart, then I think it's best to not have it. I tried to sound out a voiceless version and I didn't have much luck.

But taking it out leaves me with some noobish sounding consonants. I'll go back through and I'll see what I can do about revamping it. And still sound natural!

What do mean you can't make a voiceless [ʑ]? Its essentially like a y-like sh sound. It's essentially [ʑ], only you just don't vibrate your vocal cords is all.
You don't HAVE to get rid of it, you just need to practise.
And pharyngealized [ɕ] is more like /ɕħ/.

[vokzhen]

I don't get the aversion to /ʑˤ/. Having one or two out-of-place sounds if fine. If you can come up with a reasonable source, I see no issue, and sometimes even then. (American) English has a sound that's broadly [ɻˤ ~ ɰˤ], despite no precedence for pharyngealization in the language, to speak nothing of presence of a single out-of-place uvular in most of Western Europe. Chechen has /r̥/ despite no other voiceless sonorants, and found only in two numerals and their derivations. Several languages have an out-of-place /ɖ/ without any other retroflexes. Classical Arabic famously has an out-of-place /ɮˤ/ despite no other lateral fricatives. Muskogean languages have /b/ with no other voiced obstruents. Japanese has /ɴ/ with no other uvulars. And so on, and so on. You want to be careful that you don't end up with Klingon, but a total aversion to asymmetry as non-naturalistic seems misplaced.

[2+3 clusivity]

I don't get the aversion to /ʑˤ/. Having one or two out-of-place sounds if fine. If you can come up with a reasonable source, I see no issue, and sometimes even then. (American) English has a sound that's broadly [ɻˤ ~ ɰˤ]

When I originally saw your phonology, I thought you were trying to represent something equivalent to the American English "R" sound with your /ʑˤ/. Nothing wrong with either odd ball sounds. Your inventory seems fine, with possibly your main stop series being a bit scant. /t, d, g/ seems pretty thin in terms of POAS and MOAs, especially when your nasals are broad enough to cover /m, n, ŋ/ POAs.

If you are worried about parallelism in MOAs with regard to the retroflex sound -- your stress really isn't necessary -- just make the sound a voiced approximant and forget about it.

[vokzhen]

Your inventory seems fine, with possibly your main stop series being a bit scant. /t, d, g/ seems pretty thin in terms of POAS and MOAs, especially when your nasals are broad enough to cover /m, n, ŋ/ POAs.

This is true. Arranged more "normally," you total inventory appears to be:
/m n ŋ/
/t d g/
/ts tʃ dʒ/
/f v s z ʃ ʒ ʑˤ h/
/r l j/
Add in /k/ and you're probably okay, but much common would be to add /p b k/, especially since you already have /f v/. If you don't want to add additional sounds, changing /f v/ to /p b/ could work, and/or changing /g/ to /k/. It is outstandingly rare to lack /k/ altogether, so if you want something naturalistic you should be aware of that.

You could take all instances of /g/ you currently have and change them to /k/, saying that /ʑˤ/ arose from an older *g and it's the source of that asymmetry. /g/ has a tendency to be lost more than any of the other "main" stops, to things such as /(d)ʒ ɣ ŋ w j ħ/, depending in part on how the sound system is structured in the first place. Or not, plenty of other possible origins (the original *l with new /l/ arising from /t d/ in certain positions; remnant of an old palatalization process that turns *kj *gj into /tʃ dʒ/ and *ħj *ʕj into /hj ʑˤ/ before the pharyngeals were lost), or of course you can ignore the origins if it doesn't appeal to you.

[finlay]

I think it's OK, to be honest. Perhaps having m and f & v but no labial stops is unusual but stranger things happen in the real world.

[Nortaneous]

Hupa has no labial stops but does have /xʷ hʷ w/ (and no other rounded consonants but tʃʷʰ) so you could start with something like that and get /f v/ from there. Would expect /v/ to be realized as [w] in some environments though. You don't really get inventories with no labial plosives outside "no labials" or "no labials but /m/" but I guess you could say /b/ implosivized and then merged with /m/ or something. Still seems weird.

/ʃ ʒ ʑˤ/ seems unlikely -- ʑ is alveolopalatal, so fronted, but simultaneously pharyngealized, so backed. /ɕ ʑ ʐˤ/ would be better -- backing can cause retroflexion.

[vokzhen]

/ʃ ʒ ʑˤ/ seems unlikely -- ʑ is alveolopalatal, so fronted, but simultaneously pharyngealized, so backed. /ɕ ʑ ʐˤ/ would be better -- backing can cause retroflexion.

Unlikely, but not out of the realm of possibility. Abkhaz has /ɥ/ that some people apparently pronounce [ɥˤ]( < *ʕʷ), and more commonly several languages have /iˤ/. While it's possible possible many of these are centralized and/or more open than cardinal /i/, I'm sure I've read of languages where the front of the tongue in /iˤ/ remains identical to /i/ and it's entirely the velum/pharyngeal area that has a modified tongue position.
EDIT: I kan spell gud.

[Megandia]

Your inventory seems fine, with possibly your main stop series being a bit scant. /t, d, g/ seems pretty thin in terms of POAS and MOAs, especially when your nasals are broad enough to cover /m, n, ŋ/ POAs.

This is true. Arranged more "normally," you total inventory appears to be:
/m n ŋ/
/t d g/
/ts tʃ dʒ/
/f v s z ʃ ʒ ʑˤ h/
/r l j/

I have a very beginner question about this, why is it arranged like that? I'm probably missing something very obvious.


I did some thinking and I think I've figured a way to fix it! Maybe. Haven't figured out where they would fit, but here it goes.
/m n ŋ/
/t d g k/ <- added the /k/. That actually helped out a lot!
/ts tʃ tʃˤ dʒ/
/f v s z ʃ ʃˤ ʒ ʒˤ h/
/r l j/

I added four sounds. /k/, like was suggested which really does make sense, then three pharygenealized sounds: /tʃˤ/ , /ʃˤ/ , and /ʒˤ/ . These sounds would in turn change the vowel sounds that follow into pharygenealized versions, correct? So zhjeru would be pronounced like /ʒˤɛˤɾu/ instead of /ʒˤɛɾu/ . (Also, what is a good way to show this in vowels other than using a ˤ, or is there a better way?)

I think changing the sounds to that would fit better. And perhaps [tʃˤ] and [ʃˤ] could be allophones in front of certain vowels. Or between certain vowels in words. I haven't determined exactly where they'd fit, but I think that would clear the issues up with phonology.