Post your conlang's phonology

[Xados]

Wow I really screwed up but the inventory is how I slur most of my words.

I'll drop w and rr's sounds and lc lx xh ch yy as well

I am sorry I didn't mean to offend you and the mood was neutral

[finlay]

that's fine... i think i understand what you mean anyway.

[Xados]

thanks finlay

[Xados]

This would be my preferred orthography, but only if you don't want diacritics (yet you have used diacritics on the vowels):

(phonemic)

Code: Select all

p b         t   tʃ dʒ tɬ dɮ c ɟ k g     ʔ
  m   ɱ       n                   ŋ
    f v θ ð s z  ʃ  ʒ  ɬ  ɮ     x ɣ   ʀ   ɦ
  w           ɾ     ɥ     ɫ   j   ʟ

(orthographic)

Code: Select all

p b           t   ch jh tl dl c j k  g     q
  m   ?         n                    ng
    f v th dh s z sh zh ls lz     kh gh r    h
  u             d     ü    l    i     ?

I'm not sure about th/dh, to be honest, and you could replace q with x. I've put question marks for ɱ and ʟ because a) I think you should take them out and b) I don't know of a good way of doing them*. I've given the semivowels vowel letters because I think you should consider them equivalents of the vowels /u/, /y/ and /i/ rather than the diphthongs you gave. Just give digraph spellings to the diphthongs. Another way of doing it would be w for /w/, ÿ for /ɥ/, and y for /j/. I don't honestly know a better way of doing /ɥ/ – I don't think yy works very well.

But note that I've kept in a couple of things, particularly <ls> for /ɬ/, which I liked, and <d> for /ɾ/. Because I changed <x> to <z>, I changed <lx> to <lz> too (similarly, <xh> → <zh>). I wasn't too sure about <lc> and <lj> though. I mean they're kind of inventive I guess, but I think <tl> works better and is simpler. I put <kh> for /x/ to be consistent with <gh> for /ɣ/, and I think <ch> and <jh> for /tʃ/ and /dʒ/ meshes better with <sh zh> for /ʃ ʒ/, although double letters <cc jj> aren't too bad for this.

*<ll> isn't bad though. I don't think <w> for /ɱ/ is a good idea. The best I can come up with is something like <ṁ>..

Oh yeah, and about your vowels, not too bad (I quite like the correspondence between short /ɤ/ and long /ø/), but how do you tell if it's short, long, or reduced to schwa? (Actually, I think you probably too many vowels to also reduce everything to schwa)

this was just an endless stream of thought - don't take it seriously because this is a prototype seeing which sounds everyone preferred-the orthography was just a joke-mostly

[roninbodhisattva]

Which phonology do people like better,

option 1 or option 2?

Option 1 has a syllable structure of C(G)V(C, G), where G is a glide. Internal codas are limited by that medial clusters list, whereas word final codas are limited to /m n t k/, maybe /ts/ as well. Word initially you can get the prenasalized clusters, as well (so something like [nka] is a valid word initial syllable.

[MisterBernie]

I prefer option 1, although option 2's geminated consonants look inviting. But the simultaneous lack of [p] and [g] is a bit strange (to me).

[roninbodhisattva]

I prefer option 1, although option 2's geminated consonants look inviting. But the simultaneous lack of [p] and [g] is a bit strange (to me).

I've explained this mentally by saying I just really don't like /p/ so it disappeared in some kind of weird shift maybe like Celtic. And *g > dʒ.

I'm partial to the first one as well, but I like the idea of doing something extremely isolating without having the kind of phonology that's usually assocoated with such languages.

[MisterBernie]

I've explained this mentally by saying I just really don't like /p/ so it disappeared in some kind of weird shift maybe like Celtic. And *g > dʒ.

I'm partial to the first one as well, but I like the idea of doing something extremely isolating without having the kind of phonology that's usually assocoated with such languages.

Only one solution: do both

Also I totally understand you on personal preferences. One day I will make a language without [ð] and [ŋ] and not lose interest after a week... one day.

[roninbodhisattva]

Motherfucker. The 'bi- or disyllabic' should obviously be 'mono- or disyllablic' in option 2.

Only one solution: do both

I don't know if I would be able to stick it out...

[Nortaneous]

iunno, they both look pretty average and conlangy to me. maybe look at some natlangs and steal shit from there.

[finlay]

I prefer option 1, although option 2's geminated consonants look inviting. But the simultaneous lack of [p] and [g] is a bit strange (to me).

They're the most common two to be missing from the basic inventory of /p t k b d g/. Arabic is a good example of one that has neither.

[MisterBernie]

They're the most common two to be missing from the basic inventory of /p t k b d g/. Arabic is a good example of one that has neither.

I know, but lack of [p] is highly clustered (versus a more broadly spread lack of [g]; at least if WALS is to be believed, so YMMV, I guess), and Arabic in particular seems to be a possible example of a source of an areal feature.

[finlay]

They're the most common two to be missing from the basic inventory of /p t k b d g/. Arabic is a good example of one that has neither.

I know, but lack of [p] is highly clustered (versus a more broadly spread lack of [g]; at least if WALS is to be believed, so YMMV, I guess), and Arabic in particular seems to be a possible example of a source of an areal feature.

Lack or loss of [p] is also attested in Irish and Japanese. (Both modern languages do have p but Irish only has it in loanwords and Japanese only has it in loanwords and native words with geminates, as far as I know. Japanese has a contrast between "nihon" and "nippon" for instance.)

[MisterBernie]

Lack or loss of [p] is also attested in Irish and Japanese. (Both modern languages do have p but Irish only has it in loanwords and Japanese only has it in loanwords and native words with geminates, as far as I know. Japanese has a contrast between "nihon" and "nippon" for instance.)

Aye, aye. Additional example: Standard German wouldn't have a proper [p] if we hadn't loaned it back.

I meant it as more of a "lacking both [p] and [g] seems a bit weird to me" in a "these two are the most commonly lacking, so I'm gonna make a language that lacks both" way.

[roninbodhisattva]

Something else I just threw together, based on Tokana and something I did a while ago:

Code: Select all

p    th    t           k
           ts        
           s     lh    h
m          n     l


i e a u o 

<th> is an interdental stop, and <lh> is /ɬ/. There is coronal harmony through which /t̪/ and /t ts/ cannot occur in the same words, and in which /s/ > [θ] in words containing /t̪/.

[finlay]

What I would do to it is make the laterals dental so that the /t̪/ isn't so lonely all on its own.

[roninbodhisattva]

What I would do to it is make the laterals dental so that the /t̪/ isn't so lonely all on its own.

My reaction to that idea is basically 'ehhhh'

[finlay]

well yeah... But you've got two columns there with big gaps...

[roninbodhisattva]

well yeah... But you've got two columns there with big gaps...

True. I'm thinking about adding a lateral affricate but I don't really want to. And I don't really want to add a phonemic dental fricative. I actually like the gaps a lot as is.

[Nortaneous]

add an interdental lateral then

[roninbodhisattva]

add an interdental lateral then

Oh god ew.

Though that might be amusing.

[Xados]

Do you mean theta? If you wanna use fita, then go ahead and use Ѳ.

As it is, your orthography is, politely put, highly counterintuitive, in particular, but not limited to, <q> for /x/, <x> for /z/ and <z> for /θ/.
And of course <zz> for /f/. And... everything else except for <b, c, g, , m, n, j, ng, g, p>.
Reboot universe alphabet.

nope zeta used to sound like :dh and theta at one period of its existence

[sirdanilot]

I've been working for quite a while on this language lately (already quite far into morphology). However I was opposed to creating an entire thread for just another phonology. Then i found this thread.

Here it is. It has phoneme inventory, allophony, prosody/stress and whatnot for you guys to feast on.

edit: oh, and in the consonant inventory, /c/ should be /x/.

[Risla]

I prefer option 1, although option 2's geminated consonants look inviting. But the simultaneous lack of [p] and [g] is a bit strange (to me).

http://wals.info/feature/5A

(they exist!)

[Bristel]

I prefer option 1, ronin, it has a nice aesthetic.