I want a recording. Actually, I just want to make that.Nortaneous wrote: (yes that means [F_0_h])
Weird natlang phonologies
- Skomakar'n
- Smeric
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:05 pm
- Åge Kruger
- Lebom
- Posts: 169
- Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 9:33 am
- Location: Norway
- Contact:
He said the phonology is insane, not the pronunciation.Skomakar'n wrote:watNortaneous wrote:Danish is just insane.
What's hard about Danish pronunciation?
[quote="Soviet Russia"]If you can't join them, beat them.[/quote]
First impression: the consonant charts just keep coming. Second impression: ejective clicks??Tropylium wrote:• N|u has consonants such as a palato-uvular affricate /cχ/, and contrasts velaric and uvularic clicks, but lacks a /t/ (no, it doesn't have a dental or ejective or aspirated one either).
- Skomakar'n
- Smeric
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:05 pm
What about it is insane? ._.Åge Kruger wrote:He said the phonology is insane, not the pronunciation.Skomakar'n wrote:watNortaneous wrote:Danish is just insane.
What's hard about Danish pronunciation?
- Nortaneous
- Sumerul
- Posts: 4544
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
- Location: the Imperial Corridor
73478265457 vowels, pharyngealization as accent, syllabic /D/, full or near-full set of diphthongs with /@_^/ (which isn't that weird for europe but damn skippy it is overall)Skomakar'n wrote:What about it is insane? ._.Åge Kruger wrote:He said the phonology is insane, not the pronunciation.Skomakar'n wrote:watNortaneous wrote:Danish is just insane.
What's hard about Danish pronunciation?
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
- Skomakar'n
- Smeric
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:05 pm
I don't see the weirdness, but that may be because I live pretty close and know the language.Nortaneous wrote:73478265457 vowels, pharyngealization as accent, syllabic /D/, full or near-full set of diphthongs with /@_^/ (which isn't that weird for europe but damn skippy it is overall)Skomakar'n wrote:What about it is insane? ._.Åge Kruger wrote:He said the phonology is insane, not the pronunciation.Skomakar'n wrote:watNortaneous wrote:Danish is just insane.
What's hard about Danish pronunciation?
When I was little, I thought the country was called "Egybti".Tropylium wrote:Ah yep. It gets even worse with more complicated loanwords. "Anegdotes" are commonplace, "gebards" are known for their greit speed, "gebab" is occasionally served, a "pekonia" (funny since it's also the partitiv of "bacon") may be grown on one's windowstill, and even the hypercorrect "Goga Gola" has been attested at least once. One case has even made it into standard Finnish: "biisi" is a loan from "piece of music".Nortaneous wrote:Also: "Some Finnish speakers find it hard to pronounce both 'b' and 'p' in foreign words (e.g. pubi), so they voice (bubi) or devoice (pupi) the entire word." (from Wikipedia)
There's also the joke that in theology conferences, everyone in the audience must try to held back laughter whenever Finns have something to say on the topic of "baconism" ([peɪkənisəm]). But yeah, THIS may now be getting off topic.
- Nortaneous
- Sumerul
- Posts: 4544
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
- Location: the Imperial Corridor
Rotuman has massive amounts of grammatical metathesis and deletion, and some weird rules for handling vowel clusters. (/uO/ -> [wa], but /ua/ -> [wO]? the fuck?)
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
-
- Sanci
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:49 pm
that looks pretty cool actually. There's stuff there that conlangers seem to like to do all the time with vowel combinations and what-not.Nortaneous wrote:Rotuman has massive amounts of grammatical metathesis and deletion, and some weird rules for handling vowel clusters. (/uO/ -> [wa], but /ua/ -> [wO]? the fuck?)
[url=http://wiki.penguindeskjob.com/Aptaye]My conlang Aptaye. Check it outttt[/url]
Economic Left/Right: -0.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.97
Economic Left/Right: -0.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.97
- Skomakar'n
- Smeric
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:05 pm
Since you think Danish has a weird phonology, it would be interesting to see what you think of the way I pronounce my native tounge (Swedish). I think I have less vowels than Danish, though. I'll think about how I do pronounce things, and try to find out which sounds I use. I'll give you the phonology when I get home in a couple of hours.
- Nortaneous
- Sumerul
- Posts: 4544
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
- Location: the Imperial Corridor
- Skomakar'n
- Smeric
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:05 pm
I'll still give it a try. It seems like a fun thing to do.Nortaneous wrote:Documenting your idiolect is a hell of a lot harder than you'd think. I've tried, and I always end up forgetting so much that the description is basically useless.
There are at least some things I believe are a bit peculiar, such as /u U U\ y Y 2 &/.
Onondaga doesn't have one really strange feature, but it has a bunch of odd features combined that make it weird imo:
-no labials except /w/
-no voicing contrast on any phonemes, but the only affricate is /dZ/
-/i e { a o/ vowel system, with /e~ u~/. I'd definitely expect /o~/ instead of /u~/ because there is no /u/ and nasal vowels are susceptible to lowering.
-no /l/ or /r/ phonemes.
-no labials except /w/
-no voicing contrast on any phonemes, but the only affricate is /dZ/
-/i e { a o/ vowel system, with /e~ u~/. I'd definitely expect /o~/ instead of /u~/ because there is no /u/ and nasal vowels are susceptible to lowering.
-no /l/ or /r/ phonemes.
p_>-ts_>k_>-k_>k_>-pSSSSS
- Skomakar'n
- Smeric
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:05 pm
I am going for the monophthongs at the moment. I have found these so far:
/a: A: A E: E i: I: I o: u: u ? U: U U\: y: Y: Y 2 &: &/
I'll state examples including all of these, composed in the following form:
Standard Swedish orthography - /Standard Swedish pronunciation/ - [my pronunciation] - preferred orthography for me - English translation
galen - /'gA:l@n/ - ['ga:l`In] - galen - crazy
tala - /'tA:la/ - ['tA:l`A] - tala - speak
kall - /kal:/ - [kAl`Ir] - kalder - cold
här - /h{:r/ - [hE:r] - her - here/army
älska - /Elska/ - [El`skA] - elska - to love
i - /i:/ - [i:] - i/í - in
veta - /'ve:ta/ - ['vI:tA] - vita - to wit
sitta - /'sIt:a/ - ['sIt:Sa] - sitja - to sit
någon - /'no:gOn/ - ['no:kYn] - nokun -some/someone
bok - /bu:k/ - ['bu:k] - bok/bók - book
trodde - /'trud:@/ - ['tru?I] - thought/believed
bord - /bu:d`/ - [bU:r] - bord/borð - table/board
kort - /kUt`/ - [kUt`] - kort - card
ko - /ku:/ - [kU\:] - ku/kú - cow
fryser - /fry:s@r/ - [fry:s] - frys/frýs - I freeze
runa - /'rU\:na/ - ['RY:nA] - runa - rune
upp - /U\p:/ - [Yp:] or [Y:p:] - upp - up
börja - /'b2r:ja/ - ['b2r:jA] - byrja - to begin
såg - /so:g/ - [s&:g] - søg - a saw
snön - /sn2n:/ - [sJ&n] - snjø(e)n - the snow
I need help with a particular symbol. Both IPA and X-SAMPA. I often realise /s/ as some kind of mix between [s] and [S]. Like a very weak [S]... Do you know what I mean? In the example with <sitja> up there, it's really supposed to be that symbol and not /S/. Actually goes for the initial /s/ as well, and the final /s/ in <frys> and probably a lot of the others.
/a: A: A E: E i: I: I o: u: u ? U: U U\: y: Y: Y 2 &: &/
I'll state examples including all of these, composed in the following form:
Standard Swedish orthography - /Standard Swedish pronunciation/ - [my pronunciation] - preferred orthography for me - English translation
galen - /'gA:l@n/ - ['ga:l`In] - galen - crazy
tala - /'tA:la/ - ['tA:l`A] - tala - speak
kall - /kal:/ - [kAl`Ir] - kalder - cold
här - /h{:r/ - [hE:r] - her - here/army
älska - /Elska/ - [El`skA] - elska - to love
i - /i:/ - [i:] - i/í - in
veta - /'ve:ta/ - ['vI:tA] - vita - to wit
sitta - /'sIt:a/ - ['sIt:Sa] - sitja - to sit
någon - /'no:gOn/ - ['no:kYn] - nokun -some/someone
bok - /bu:k/ - ['bu:k] - bok/bók - book
trodde - /'trud:@/ - ['tru?I] - thought/believed
bord - /bu:d`/ - [bU:r] - bord/borð - table/board
kort - /kUt`/ - [kUt`] - kort - card
ko - /ku:/ - [kU\:] - ku/kú - cow
fryser - /fry:s@r/ - [fry:s] - frys/frýs - I freeze
runa - /'rU\:na/ - ['RY:nA] - runa - rune
upp - /U\p:/ - [Yp:] or [Y:p:] - upp - up
börja - /'b2r:ja/ - ['b2r:jA] - byrja - to begin
såg - /so:g/ - [s&:g] - søg - a saw
snön - /sn2n:/ - [sJ&n] - snjø(e)n - the snow
I need help with a particular symbol. Both IPA and X-SAMPA. I often realise /s/ as some kind of mix between [s] and [S]. Like a very weak [S]... Do you know what I mean? In the example with <sitja> up there, it's really supposed to be that symbol and not /S/. Actually goes for the initial /s/ as well, and the final /s/ in <frys> and probably a lot of the others.
Last edited by Skomakar'n on Sun Jan 31, 2010 3:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- Nortaneous
- Sumerul
- Posts: 4544
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
- Location: the Imperial Corridor
There's a lot of weirdness in that area, apparently.
Choctaw only has voice distinctions in /p/ and /l/.
Omaha-Ponca has a velarized lateral approximant with interdental release.
Mohawk has a vowel system of /a e o i @~ u~/.
Lakota has aspirates with velar frication, which only contrast with normal affricates before /e/, and an ejective uvular fricative.
Choctaw only has voice distinctions in /p/ and /l/.
Omaha-Ponca has a velarized lateral approximant with interdental release.
Mohawk has a vowel system of /a e o i @~ u~/.
Lakota has aspirates with velar frication, which only contrast with normal affricates before /e/, and an ejective uvular fricative.
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
It has /w/ under the velar POA so I think it's suppose to be /M\/ and not /w/.Mbwa wrote:
-no labials except /w/
Chiricahua has no /w j r l/ but instead has 10 fricatives.
Last edited by Tiamat on Sun Jan 31, 2010 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Nortaneous
- Sumerul
- Posts: 4544
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
- Location: the Imperial Corridor
holy shit, you have [&]? I always figured that didn't really show up in natlangs for whatever reasonSkomakar'n wrote:såg - /so:g/ - [s&:g] - søg - a saw
snön - /sn2n:/ - [sJ&n] - snjø(e)n - the snow
[s_j]? or maybe it's just laminal: [s_m]I need help with a particular symbol. Both IPA and X-SAMPA. I often realise /s/ as some kind of mix between [s] and [S]. Like a very weak [S]... Do you know what I mean? In the example with <sitja> up there, it's really supposed to be that symbol and not /S/. Actually goes for the initial /s/ as well, and the final /s/ in <frys> and probably a lot of the others.
anyway where the fuck did all those [l`] come from?
nah, /w/ gets listed under the velar POA all the timeVortex wrote:It has /w/ under the velar POA so I think it's suppose to be /M\/ and not /w/.Mbwa wrote:
-no labials except /w/
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
- Colzie
- Sanci
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 1:37 am
- Location: University of Chicago / Alcuniti Śikagos
- Contact:
True...also /ɰ/ without /w/ is incredibly weird. Other than the vowels though this doesn't look strange to me.Nortaneous wrote:nah, /w/ gets listed under the velar POA all the timeVortex wrote:It has /w/ under the velar POA so I think it's suppose to be /M\/ and not /w/.Mbwa wrote:
-no labials except /w/
[quote="Octaviano"]Why does one need to invent an implausible etymology when we've got other linguistic resources to our avail? [/quote]
I'm inclined to believe it's /M\/ since other native american languages in the area have /M\/ instead /w/ even with having the bilabial POV.Nortaneous wrote:nah, /w/ gets listed under the velar POA all the timeVortex wrote:It has /w/ under the velar POA so I think it's suppose to be /M\/ and not /w/.Mbwa wrote:
-no labials except /w/
- Nortaneous
- Sumerul
- Posts: 4544
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
- Location: the Imperial Corridor
- Skomakar'n
- Smeric
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:05 pm
Unless this symbol doesn't represent the sound I think it does, I do. I'll record it later.Nortaneous wrote:holy shit, you have [&]? I always figured that didn't really show up in natlangs for whatever reasonSkomakar'n wrote:såg - /so:g/ - [s&:g] - søg - a saw
snön - /sn2n:/ - [sJ&n] - snjø(e)n - the snow
What about IPA?Nortaneous wrote:[s_j]? or maybe it's just laminal: [s_m]I need help with a particular symbol. Both IPA and X-SAMPA. I often realise /s/ as some kind of mix between [s] and [S]. Like a very weak [S]... Do you know what I mean? In the example with <sitja> up there, it's really supposed to be that symbol and not /S/. Actually goes for the initial /s/ as well, and the final /s/ in <frys> and probably a lot of the others.
As far as I know, not one single l coming out of my mouth isn't retroflex. I am pretty sure they all are.Nortaneous wrote:anyway where the fuck did all those [l`] come from?
- Nortaneous
- Sumerul
- Posts: 4544
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
- Location: the Imperial Corridor
It's a low front rounded vowel. (rounded /a/)Skomakar'n wrote:Unless this symbol doesn't represent the sound I think it does, I do. I'll record it later.Nortaneous wrote:holy shit, you have [&]? I always figured that didn't really show up in natlangs for whatever reasonSkomakar'n wrote:såg - /so:g/ - [s&:g] - søg - a saw
snön - /sn2n:/ - [sJ&n] - snjø(e)n - the snow
http://conlanger.com/xipa.html (for some reason, this doesn't take <_j>; you have to use <'> instead, and yeah, that's valid X-SAMPA)What about IPA?Nortaneous wrote:[s_j]? or maybe it's just laminal: [s_m]I need help with a particular symbol. Both IPA and X-SAMPA. I often realise /s/ as some kind of mix between [s] and [S]. Like a very weak [S]... Do you know what I mean? In the example with <sitja> up there, it's really supposed to be that symbol and not /S/. Actually goes for the initial /s/ as well, and the final /s/ in <frys> and probably a lot of the others.
sʲ or s̻
awesomeAs far as I know, not one single l coming out of my mouth isn't retroflex. I am pretty sure they all are.Nortaneous wrote:anyway where the fuck did all those [l`] come from?
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
- rickardspaghetti
- Avisaru
- Posts: 399
- Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:45 pm
- Location: Sweden
Skomakar'n, this is a speech impediment, not an idiolect. Visit a speech pedagog.Nortaneous wrote:awesomeAs far as I know, not one single l coming out of my mouth isn't retroflex. I am pretty sure they all are.Nortaneous wrote:anyway where the fuck did all those [l`] come from?
そうだ。死んでいる人も勃起することが出来る。
俺はその証だ。
俺はその証だ。