Post your conlang's phonology

[Whimemsz]

Here pharyngealisation = new POA
Not very awesome, that new POA
I like a systematic system of pharyngealisation, truth be told

What

[Herr Dunkel]

Here pharyngealisation = new POA
Not very awesome, that new POA
I like a systematic system of pharyngealisation, truth be told

What

Consonants:
Plosive: /p t tˤ k/
Fricative: /s sˤ x h/
Nasal: /m n nˤ ŋ/
Approximant: /l lˤ/
Tap: /ɾ/

Chaoibhuin added pharyngealised coronal as a new POA, not pharyngealisation as a systematic secondary articulation

[Whimemsz]

He drew the chart up that way, yes. The system itself is essentially equivalent to Arabic or Semitic in general, so there's nothing wrong with it in terms of plausibility.

[Herr Dunkel]

He drew the chart up that way, yes. The system itself is essentially equivalent to Arabic or Semitic in general, so there's nothing wrong with it in terms of plausibility.

I never said anything about plausibility, just that it's not that awesome to me.
To each his own

[Chaoibhuin]

How would my consonant chart be different if it had pharyngealization as a systematic secondary articulation?

[Whimemsz]

I guess he wants you to have pharyngealization distinctive for every consonant? Who knows. Don't pay much attention to him.

[sirdanilot]

Just ignore Darkgamma. Your phoneme inventory is fine as is. If anything, the omission of /ħ/ is a bit strange (especially with /h/), but it can be explained through some sort of historical quirk.

Phonotactics: Syllable structure is CV(C). Words never begin in a pharyngealized consonant. The consonants /p t tˤ k h ɾ/ do not occur in root-medial codas, and /p x h ɾ/ do not occur in root-final codas.

Perhaps it is more insightful to posit it like this:
*[stop], /h/, /ɾ/ _C
*/p/, /x/, /h/, /ɾ/ _]_σ

This shows already that your phonotactics are a bit odd. You should look up the term natural class. Your first set is clearly fairly logical I can generalize it with simply [stop], in addition to the phonemes that can never be in coda position), but the phonemes in your second set do not form a natural class. What you could do, is allow them anyway, but cause some sort of allophony. For example, /p/ -> [f], /x/ -> /h/ or /χ/ and a complete drop of /h/ (perhaps lengthening the preceding vowel).

[Herr Dunkel]

I guess he wants you to have pharyngealization distinctive for every consonant? Who knows. Don't pay much attention to him.

No I didn't. I just said I don't like it personally.


I find your inventory has some gaps. Don't know if it was intentional, but there's no /f/ (OK) and no /ɾˤ/ (unexpected, but OK)
How would you explain the lack of /ɾˤ/?

[Chaoibhuin]

I have considered changing my consonant inventory to the following:

p t tˤ k ʔ
b d dˤ g
f s sˤ x ħ h
v z zˤ ɣ
m n nˤ ŋ
l lˤ
ɾ ɾˤ

Phonotactics: CV(C). Words do not begin in a pharyngeal or pharyngealized consonant. Words do not end in a labial consonant or in /h/.

This consonant inventory and these phonotactics make more sense and there are less gaps, I think?

[chris_notts]

This consonant inventory and these phonotactics make more sense and there are less gaps, I think?

Some gaps are normal. I really wouldn't worry about it if every series isn't completely filled... in fact it's a complete lack of gaps that's a bit unusual.

[maıráí]

Nnonni:

Vowels have what I like to pretend is front/back harmony.
All vowels can be either long or short.

Back:
a~ə u o
ao ai oi ɛa

Front:
æ ø~y ʊ
æʊ æi ʊi ɛæ

Neutral:
i ɛ ɪ
ɛi~e


Some consonants have "voicing harmony".

Voiceless:
t k p s ɸ h

Voiced:
d g b z β ɹ~r

Neutral:
q s~θ ʃ l ɮ m n ŋ j ʋ ts tʃ tɮ

All consonants can be long medially, but only some can be so initially:
s ʃ l ɮ n j ʋ

mylhae - to close up, to lock up, to cut off
mmylhae - to hum
Those words are orthographic, not phonetic.

Non-initial n is subject to "n harmony", n~m~ŋ.
Tan kang pam, but tangkang tampam.

Tone/Stress:
Stress is always on the first syllable; stress is more often an exaggeration of tone than of volume or force.
Syllables can be low, high or rising tone, but the word as a whole must conform to set patterns.
Ma˨ma˦ma˦ (LHH) is a valid word; ma˦ma˨ma˦ (HLH) is not.

Syllable structure is (C(C))V(V)(C), although a CCVVC is invalid.

[Alces]

Here's the inventory of Ajeddos, as I currently have it worked out:

Plosives:
voiceless - p, t̪, ʈ, tʃ, c, ʔ
aspirated - pʰ, t̪ʰ, ʈʰ, tʃʰ, cʰ, kʰ
ejective - pʼ, t̪ʼ, ʈʼ, tʃʼ, cʼ, kʼ
voiced - b, d̪, ɖ, dʒ, ɟ, g
creaky voiced - b̰, d̰, ɖ̰, d̰ʒ, ɟ̰, g̰

Fricatives:
voiceless - f, s, ʃ, ç, χ
ejective - fʼ, sʼ, ʃʼ, çʼ, χʼ
voiced - z, ʒ, ɦ
creaky-voiced - z̰, ʒ̰
breathy-voiced - z̤, ʒ̤

Nasals:
voiced - m, n, ɳ, ɲ
breathy-voiced - m̤, n̤, ɳ̤, ɲ̤

Approximants:
voiced - w, l, ɻ, j
creaky-voiced - w̰, l̰, ɻ̰, j̰
breathy-voiced - w̤, l̤, ɻ̤, j̤

I was aiming for an Ubykh-ish preponderance of consonants in this language. Still only 67 consonants, compared to Ubykh's 84.

As for vowels: i, u, e, o, ɛ, ɔ, a.

[Nortaneous]

Is there natlang precedent for contrasting ejectives and creaky-voiced consonants, especially fricatives?

[chris_notts]

Is there natlang precedent for contrasting ejectives and creaky-voiced consonants, especially fricatives?

There are a small number of natlangs which contrast implosives and ejectives. Since implosives may be creaky voiced, they might provide an example?

[SlayerXX33398]

I just had the inspiration to start on a conlang with a tonal system and 10 vowels, that can be adjusted to 40, as each vowel can be lengthened, and there are two tones. There's also one consonant: /?/

/ʔ/
/i˦ y˦ e˦ ø˦ ɛ˦ a˦ ɯ˦ u˦ o˦ ɔ˦ iː˦ yː˦ eː˦ øː˦ ɛː˦ aː˦ ɯː˦ uː˦ oː˦ ɔː˦ i˨ y˨ e˨ ø˨ ɛ˨ a˨ ɯ˨ u˨ o˨ ɔ˨ iː˨ yː˨ eː˨ øː˨ ɛː˨ aː˨ ɯː˨ uː˨ oː˨ ɔː˨/

<h>
<i iy e ey E a u uy o O ii iiy ee eey EE aa uu uuy oo OO iq iyq eq eyq Eq aq uq uyq o Oq iiq iiyq eeq eeyq EEq aaq uuq uuyq ooq OOq>

syllable structure is CV, which means only words such as hihiy and hOOhEqhaq

EDIT: Half the vowels are invisible with Verdana font; you should probably switch to something that can display IPA better, such as Arial Unicode MS

[cromulant]

There's also one consonant:

Sorry, no.

[Turtlehead]

My new meme I've been thinking about;

/p b v m f t d D n T k g ? N x/
<p b/v m f t d/dd n th c g/h ng x>
/a e i o u u: @ i:/
<a e i o u w y>

[txmmj]

/m n̪ ɲ ŋ/ m n ṅ/n(i) ŋ
/p b t̪ d̪ ʔ/ p b t d h
/ts dz tɕ dʑ/ c x ċ/c(i) ẋ/x(i)
/ɸ β θ ð s z ɕ ʑ ç ʝ x ɣ/ f v þ ð/-r s z ṡ/s(i) ż/z(i) ḱ/k(i) ġ/g(i) k g
/j w ɥ/ i w y
/r̪/ r
/ɬ̪ ɮ̪̪/ kl gl
/l̪ ʎ/ l ĺ/l(i)

* ḱ and ĺ should be written with a dot above, but you can't type it that way, so I used that instead.

/a e i o ø u y/ a e i o u w y
/ə ɪ/ a/e -e (unstressed)
/aɪ oɪ/ æ œ

I'm not 100% happy with this yet... I want to change it around more to make it look more natural or make it flow better. Any ideas or suggestions?

[SlayerXX33398]

There's also one consonant:

Sorry, no.

Is that just because this is an extremely unnaturalistic phonology? I know its unrealistic, I made this just for kicks. Not meaning for it to be used anywhere. Haven't you ever done anything like this just to see how far you can go with unreality?

[cromulant]

More that it's unappealing. I, personally, would get no pleasure out of such a language.

I've never tried to make an outrageously unrealistic language, that kind of thing just leaves me cold. The ideas I actually like and work with are probably unrealistic enough without me needing to do a freaklang.

[Nortaneous]

Is there natlang precedent for contrasting ejectives and creaky-voiced consonants, especially fricatives?

There are a small number of natlangs which contrast implosives and ejectives. Since implosives may be creaky voiced, they might provide an example?

Yeah, but not for fricatives, which is the part that I'd say is especially unrealistic.

* ḱ and ĺ should be written with a dot above, but you can't type it that way, so I used that instead.

http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode ... ertest.htm

<k̇ l̇> are what you're looking for, although those don't show up. Maybe <k͘> (with U+0358), but I'm not sure if there's a way to get l-dot. You could always just use <ḳ ḷ>; varying the placement of diacritics is pretty standard practice in cases like this.

[Herr Dunkel]

There's also one consonant:

Sorry, no.

Is that just because this is an extremely unnaturalistic phonology? I know its unrealistic, I made this just for kicks. Not meaning for it to be used anywhere. Haven't you ever done anything like this just to see how far you can go with unreality?

Already done.
It's a bit boring to see this done time and time again. And please, don't use the mid-low and mid-high tone marks - they aren't distinct from high and low and therefore you'd have no use of them.
Everybody who understands tone knows that it's relative, not absolute.

[8Deer]

Southeastern Native American inspired phonology:

Consonants:
p t k kʷ ʔ
ts tʃ
θ s ʃ x xʷ h
r j w
m n

Vowels:
i e a o u
ĩ ã ũ
ai au

Allophony:
-Voiceless stops and affricates are voiced intervocalically.
- Sequences of stop+h were aspirated and sequences of stop+ʔ are lightly ejective.
- /k/ is palatized to [tʃ] before /i, j/.
- /h/ becomes /x/ after /a u o/ and /ç/ after /i e/.
- Labiovelars become plain velars before /u/.
- /n/ becomes /ŋ/ before /k/.

Haven't fully worked out phonotactics yet.

[sirdanilot]

A phonology without phonotactics isn't very helpful, but anyway:

Allophony:
-Voiceless stops and affricates are voiced intervocalically.
- Sequences of stop+h were aspirated and sequences of stop+ʔ are lightly ejective.

lightly ejective.

what? they either have a glottalized eggressive phonation or not. they cannot be 'lightly' glottalized.

- /k/ is palatized to [tʃ] before /i, j/.
- /h/ becomes /x/ after /a u o/ and /ç/ after /i e/.

isn't it more logical to change, for example, sequences like /hi/ to /ç/? or do that in addition to what you're doing here.

- Labiovelars become plain velars before /u/.

the labial articulation tends to become a bit hard to discern before a rounded vowel, yes, but delabialization before a labial sounds pretty weird to me.

- /n/ becomes /ŋ/ before /k/.

no other nasal assimilation? n before p becomes m?
not that you need complete nasal assimilation (ie. Dutch does fine without it), just a point to consider.

[8Deer]

what? they either have a glottalized eggressive phonation or not. they cannot be 'lightly' glottalized.

I was referring to something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejective#Description. Plus I've read that in some languages, ejectives aren't as distinctly pronounced as in others (I think Georgian may have been given as an example). If I've misunderstood, I'll change it accordingly.

isn't it more logical to change, for example, sequences like /hi/ to /ç/? or do that in addition to what you're doing here.

Yeah that does make more sense and I don't know why I didn't have that. Thanks. I may make it so that /h/ is only affected before/after /i a o/ as well...

the labial articulation tends to become a bit hard to discern before a rounded vowel, yes, but delabialization before a labial sounds pretty weird to me.

Ok I'll change that.

no other nasal assimilation? n before p becomes m?
not that you need complete nasal assimilation (ie. Dutch does fine without it), just a point to consider.

Oops that's a dumb mistake on my part. This language originally didn't have /p/ (although one dialect was going to derive it from /kʷ/), so I didn't need to specify. I'll just change it to so that nasal consonants assimilate to the POA of the following consonant. Thanks.

As for phonotactics, I was thinking just C(C)V(C), with /m n p t k kʷ h/ occurring as finals, but I'll think more about that later.

Thanks for the help.