Post your conlang's phonology

[Taernsietr]

dafuq, apical/laminal series and prevelar/velar? How does that even work?

Why did you choose to represent the centrals with tilde? Seems really unintuitive for me... then again, the orthography isn't really logical. Were you aiming for a specific aesthetic?

Also, do /i_V:/ diphthongs reduce to [jV:]?

[Nortaneous]

dafuq, apical/laminal series and prevelar/velar? How does that even work?

I'd guess the laminals are phonetically palatalized.

[Nortaneous]

Mbwa said something about a Germanic-Chinese lang on IRC a while back, and that got me wondering about what a Germanic-Southeast Asian phonology would look like. It's more Old Chinese than modern Chinese, and there's a bit of Burmese in there also, but whatever.

Initials:

Code: Select all

pʰ p  tʰ  t  tsʰ ts  tʃʰ tʃ  kʰ  k      <p  b t  d c z q   gj k   g >
      tˤʰ tˤ                 kˤʰ kˤ     <     th dh           kh  gh>
mʰ m  nʰ n           ɲʰ  ɲ   ŋʰ ŋ       <hm m hn n     hny ny hng ng>
f     θ      s       ʃ       x          <f    đ    s   sch     h    >
             sˤ              χˤ  ʁ~ʕ    <          sh        ch   r >
             l̥   l       ɻ              <     hl l         zh       >

Finals:

Code: Select all

              ┏━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┓
              ┃        Medial         ┃
┏━━━━━━━┳━━━━━╋━━━━━┯━━━━━┯━━━━━┯━━━━━╋━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━┓
┃Nucleus┃Coda ┃  Ø  │  i  │  u  │  y  ┃      Orthography      ┃
┣━━━━━━━╇━━━━━╋━━━━━┿━━━━━┿━━━━━┿━━━━━╋━━━━━┯━━━━━┯━━━━━┯━━━━━┫
┃       │     ┃ ʔa  │ ja  │ vɔ  │     ┃  a  │ ja  │ wa  │     ┃
┃       │  Ø  ┃  a  │ ja  │  ɔ  │     ┃  a  │ ia  │  å  │     ┃
┃       │     ┃  aʔ │ jaʔ │  ɔʔ │     ┃  a  │ ia  │  o  │     ┃
┃       ├─────╂─────┼─────┼─────┼─────╂─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┨
┃       │     ┃ʔai  │     │vɔy  │     ┃ ei  │     │ weu │     ┃
┃   a   │  i  ┃ ai  │     │ ɔy  │     ┃ ei  │     │  eu │     ┃
┃       │     ┃ aiʔ │     │ ɔyʔ │     ┃ ei  │     │  eu │     ┃
┃       ├─────╂─────┼─────┼─────┼─────╂─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┨
┃       │     ┃ʔau  │ jau │     │     ┃ ao  │ jao │     │     ┃
┃       │  u  ┃ au  │ jau │     │     ┃ ao  │ iao │     │     ┃
┃       │     ┃ auʔ │ jɔʔ │     │     ┃ ao  │ io  │     │     ┃
┣━━━━━━━┿━━━━━╋━━━━━┿━━━━━┿━━━━━┿━━━━━╋━━━━━┿━━━━━┿━━━━━┿━━━━━┫
┃       │     ┃ ʔʌ  │ jʌ  │ vʌ  │ vɛ  ┃  ê  │ jê  │ wê  │ we  ┃
┃       │  Ø  ┃  ʌ  │ jʌ  │  o  │  ø  ┃  ê  │ iê  │  o  │  ö  ┃
┃       │     ┃  ʌʔ │  ɛʔ │  ɔʔ │  œʔ ┃  ê  │  e  │  o  │  ö  ┃
┃       ├─────╂─────┼─────┼─────┼─────╂─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┨
┃       │     ┃ ʔe  │ je  │     │     ┃  e  │ je  │     │     ┃
┃   ə   │  i  ┃  e  │ je  │     │     ┃  e  │ ie  │     │     ┃
┃       │     ┃  ɛʔ │  ɛʔ │     │     ┃  e  │ ie  │     │     ┃
┃       ├─────╂─────┼─────┼─────┼─────╂─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┨
┃       │     ┃ ʔo  │ jo  │ vo  │ vø  ┃  o  │ jo  │ wo  │ wö  ┃
┃       │  u  ┃  o  │ jo  │ vo  │ vø  ┃  o  │ io  │ wo  │ wö  ┃
┃       │     ┃  ɔʔ │  œʔ │  ɔʔ │  œʔ ┃  o  │  o  │  o  │  ö  ┃
┣━━━━━━━┿━━━━━╋━━━━━┿━━━━━┿━━━━━┿━━━━━╋━━━━━┿━━━━━┿━━━━━┿━━━━━┫
┃       │     ┃     │ je  │ vo  │ vø  ┃     │ je  │ wo  │ wö  ┃
┃   Ø   │  Ø  ┃  ɨ  │  i  │  u  │  y  ┃  i  │ ie  │  u  │  ü  ┃
┃       │     ┃     │  ɪʔ │  ʊʔ │  ʏʔ ┃     │  i  │  u  │  ü  ┃
┗━━━━━━━┷━━━━━┻━━━━━┷━━━━━┷━━━━━┷━━━━━┻━━━━━┷━━━━━┷━━━━━┷━━━━━┛

Every final is given in three forms: the top form is without an initial, the middle form is with an initial, and the bottom form is with a coda. Syllables with codas are listed as having /ʔ/, but this is only a placeholder; the allowed codas are /p t k x n ŋ χˤ ʁ/, written <p t k n ng ch r> word-finally or before a minor syllable beginning with a stop and <pp tt ck nn ng ch r> otherwise.

Not all initials can occur with all finals, of course, but I can't be bothered to work that out since I'm not actually going to turn this into a functioning conlang.

There are four tones, the same as in Mandarin and written the same way, except the first tone is unmarked.

Most non-compound words are monosyllabic, but some are sesquisyllabic: however, instead of the minor syllable occurring before the major syllable, as in Burmese, it occurs afterwards. Minor syllables can consist of, at maximum, an unaspirated stop, a schwa (written <e>), and a final besides /ŋ/. Minor syllables following syllables with no coda must begin with an unaspirated stop.

Example words: (without tone because I'm lazy)
fanden
thönner
điê
hnyaoge
wön
scheine
zheu

[Élerhe]

The phonology of my as yet unnamed conlang - grateful to receive feedback


Nasals: /m n / m n
stop: /p b t d k g ʔ/ p b t d c g ä*
Fricatives: /f v s z ʃ ɣ h / f v s z s* g* h
Approximant: / j / y
Trill: / r / r
Lateral Appr.: / l / l
Affricates: / tʃ / ç
Co-articulated Appr.: / w / ü

Vowels: / a aʔ ai aw e ei i i: o ø ɤ ʌ u: /
Written: a ä ij au e ë y i o eu ů u ü
High tone: á áa íj áu é ée ý í ó éu óu ú
Rising tone: â âa îj âu ê êe ŷ î ô êu ôu û

*/ʔ/ is only found after a, derived from an historic double aa, now written ä
*g is prounced / ɣ / after / ɤ /
*s is pronounced / ʃ / before an i
/ l m n r / can be syllabic, written: hl hm hn hr.
They can also receive tone: ħl ħm ħn ħr and ĥl ĥm ĥn ĥr
/ ʌ / is not found with tone.

Do you think that it would be better to characterise such a simple tone system as possessing 'pitch accent' rather than tone?
In which case high tone could be called acute accented, and rising tone, circumflex accented

[----]

dafuq, apical/laminal series and prevelar/velar? How does that even work?

Why did you choose to represent the centrals with tilde? Seems really unintuitive for me... then again, the orthography isn't really logical. Were you aiming for a specific aesthetic?

Also, do /i_V:/ diphthongs reduce to [jV:]?

-I'm sure there's a couple languages that contrast all of those. There are plenty that contrast alveolar, retroflex, palatal, and velar. This is basically the same thing except less strong of a distinction I suppose.
-I chose tildes because they look nice on vowels. No other reason
-Probably.

[Moanaka]

germanic-chinese inspired thing

(this is mbwa)

It's cool how you worked out all the finals like that, and the language does give off germanic and SE asian vibes. Where did the pharyngeal(ized) consonants come from though?

[----]

One reconstruction of Old Chinese has them [pharyngeals] everywhere. It was posted somewhere a little while back.

[Nortaneous]

germanic-chinese inspired thing

(this is mbwa)

It's cool how you worked out all the finals like that, and the language does give off germanic and SE asian vibes. Where did the pharyngeal(ized) consonants come from though?

Old Chinese, and I needed an excuse to get /R/ in there.

[Izambri]

Madinesian

Vowels
a i u [a ɪ ʊ]
e [ɛ:] or [æ:] is the evolution of ay [aj], but aw [aw] remains the same.

Consonants
Plosives: p t k kw [p t k kʷ]. The voiced set ([b d g gʷ]) represents the intervocalic allophones.
Nasals: m n [m n]
Fricatives: s h [s χ]
Affricates: z [ts]. Apico-alveolar, but becomes lamino-dental at the end of word; [dz] when preceded by [n].
Liquids: r l [ɾ ɺ]. Two realizations of the same liquid consonant: r is intervocalic, while l appears at the beginning of a word.
Glides: y w [j w]. Appearing in diphtongs with a, so the possible diphtongs are ay, aw, ya, wa.

[roninbodhisattva]

What's the syllable structure like?

[roninbodhisattva]

Here's something that is kind of born out of a project I have going on Pawnee, but also out of a desire to resurrect my Hiirawə conlang. This may turn into something like Hiirawə 2.0

Consonants /p t k ʔ c ks s h w ɾ j n/
Vowels /i u a ə i: u: a: e:/

The consonant /c/ is a affricate that is [ts] before consonants and word finally, and [tʃ] before a vowel. I have included /ks/ as a unitary segment in that it patterns with /c/ in some ways. In others, however, it behaves as two consonants. The glide /j/ appears only between vowels and does not appear before /i(:)/. I haven't decided whether I want /n/ and /ɾ/ to be separate phonemes. I may just have them overlap significantly.

Phonotactics are simplish. The language tends towards (C)CV syllables. Most syllables have onsets, but there are heterosyllabic vowel sequences. Consonants clusters are limited by where they appear in the word/stem. Initially, the only clusters are of the type /ks c/ + /p t k ʔ/ and /p t k s/ + /ʔ/. Medially, there are a wider array of clusters, as there are heterosyllable squences. There are never geminate clusters, and there may never be more than two consonants in a given cluster. I haven't figured this out completely.

Vowel clusters come in two types. Those that must have a medial glottal stop, and those in which medial glottal stop is contrastive. There may only be one long vowel in a give cluster. The vowel /e(:)/ never occurs as the second member of a vowel group, and /ə/ is never found in a vowel group. I haven't figured this out yet.

[Izambri]

What's the syllable structure like?

(V)CV

Notes
1. Syllables at the end of word can be CVC. Only z [t͡s] and the voiced plosives are allowed at the end of word. Among the plosives d and g are common while b is rare.
2. Some consonantic digraphs are allowed between vowels; they are ligatures in compound words. Basically t + n = –nn– and n + s = ss.

[cromulant]

What's the syllable structure like?

(V)CV

That's not a syllable structure.

[sirdanilot]

What's the syllable structure like?

(V)CV

Notes
1. Syllables at the end of word can be CVC. Only z [t͡s] and the voiced plosives are allowed at the end of word. Among the plosives d and g are common while b is rare.
2. Some consonantic digraphs are allowed between vowels; they are ligatures in compound words. Basically t + n = –nn– and n + s = ss.

1. You mean (C)V, I suppose? Also, those restrictions for word-final sounds are very, very counter-intuitive. Voiced consonants in word-final position are marked, but disallowing an unmarked feature (word-final voiceless consonants) while allowing such a marked feature is just plain weird, and would have to be explained very well.

[Izambri]

Only z [t͡s] and the voiced plosives are allowed at the end of word. Among the plosives d and g are common while b is rare.

I forgot to add r, so the allowed consonants are z, r, b, d and g.

Besides, some words (determiners, I think) could be CVC, and the possible final consonant in these cases can be wider, adding m/n and s, but this feature doesn't really matter here.

[roninbodhisattva]

Inventory for a Salishan-style langauge:

Code: Select all

p          t          č    kʷ    q    qʷ
p'   tθ'   t'    ƛ'   č'   kʷ'   q'   qʷ'   ʔ
     θ     s     ł    š    xʷ    χ    χʷ   h
m        n   r   l    y          ŋ
m        n'  r'  l    y'         ŋ'

i       u        i·       u·
e   ə            e·
    a                 a·

V· is a long vowel. There are vowel alternations before the uvulars /q qʷ q' qʷ' χ χʷ/ and /r r'/, where Q represents any plain uvular, Qʷ any rounded uvular:

Code: Select all

      Q       Qʷ     r/r'
i     ɪə      ɪə     e
i·    ɪe      ɪe     e·
u     o       o      o
u·    uo      uo     o·
ə     a       o      a

Additionally, the schwa /ə/ is before a rounded velar. Root shapes would be:

CV(C)
CV·C
CVGC
CVRC

where C = any consonant, R = resononant, G = glottal /ʔ h/.

[Chagen]

Possible Ngith inventory:

Stops:
/p pˤ~b t tˤ~d c cˤ~ɟ k kˤ~g q ʔ/

Fricatives:
/s θ/

Weak Ejectives:
/cʼ~ɟʰ kʼ~gʰ qʼ~ɢʰ/

Strong Ejectives:
/c' k' q'/

Impolsives:
/ɓ ɠ/

Nasals:
/n m ŋ/

Misc:
/j w r/

Vowels:
/i a u
/iˤ aˤ uˤ/
/i˞ a˞ u˞/

I had an idea for these wierd....."implosive vowels", but I have no idea how those would even work.

Maybe some affricates?

Phonotatics: Either (C)V(C) or crazy Salish shit, I dunno.

[Pole, the]

Some simplish phonemies:


a. Telan 15+5

/m n/
/p t c k/
/b d g/
/s ç h/
/w l j/

/a e i o u/


b. Telan 13+4

/m n ŋ/
/p t c k/
/s ç h/
/w l j/

/e a i u/


c. *unnamed non-SAE*

/m n ŋ/
/t k q ʔ/
/b d/
/s h/
/w l j/

/a ɔ i u/

[----]

I had an idea for these wierd....."implosive vowels", but I have no idea how those would even work.

That doesn't really make any sense. You could have vowels with ingressive airflow but I don't think that's phonemic in any language.

[Chagen]

I had an idea for these wierd....."implosive vowels", but I have no idea how those would even work.

That doesn't really make any sense. You could have vowels with ingressive airflow but I don't think that's phonemic in any language.

The idea was that the glottis is closed completely and then opened as the vowel is pronounced.

So....more like "voiceless ejective vowels".

[sirdanilot]

yay Salish !

Inventory for a Salishan-style langauge:

Code: Select all

p          t          č    kʷ    q    qʷ
p'   tθ'   t'    ƛ'   č'   kʷ'   q'   qʷ'   ʔ
     θ     s     ł    š    xʷ    χ    χʷ   h
m        n   r   l    y          ŋ
m        n'  r'  l    y'         ŋ'

i       u        i·       u·
e   ə            e·
    a                 a·

1. Simply using the standard geminate symbol ː would be less confusing, imo. The fact that they aren't really that long phonetically doesn't matter, as you are describing phonemes. People should learn to properly distinguish the representation of phonemes versus phones to avoid needlessly confusing transcriptions...
2. The distribution of dentals is surprising and one would wonder how it got that way. /tθ'/ might have come from *θ' or something.
3. The absence of /tsʼ/ is remarkable in a Salish-style language, especially considering (2) and the presence of other affricates.

V· is a long vowel. There are vowel alternations before the uvulars /q qʷ q' qʷ' χ χʷ/ and /r r'/, where Q represents any plain uvular, Qʷ any rounded uvular:

Code: Select all

      Q       Qʷ     r/r'
i     ɪə      ɪə     e
i·    ɪe      ɪe     e·
u     o       o      o
u·    uo      uo     o·
ə     a       o      a

Additionally, the schwa /ə/ is before a rounded velar.

I like this idea in general. Anyway, [e:r]/[er] is a bit hard to pronounce, and one would expect to keep [i:r]/[ir] in this place (or something like [ɪər] or [ɪːr] anyway). This is attested in Dutch at least. Sure, if you already have a /er/ sequence one could keep it, but assimilation of a vowel to something that is actually harder to pronounce sounds strange to me; after all, the entire point of the assimilation is to make the sequence easier to pronounce.

Root shapes would be:

CV(C)
CV·C
CVGC
CVRC

where C = any consonant, R = resononant, G = glottal /ʔ h/.

The position of the glottal sounds a bit weird to me. It would give stuff like kʼaʔk, qʷuːʔq and so. What it could do, is simply block the vowel assimilation as you described, resulting in an /o/ versus /uo/ distinction: */qwú'q/ > /qwúq/, */qwúq/ > /qwuoq/ (and yes I invented an orthography right on the spot there).

[sirdanilot]

Oh, in retrospect I can see your consonant system resulting from *s' *θʼˈ*ʃʼ *ɫʼ (the latter is not the right symbol but you know what I mean anyway, can't find the correct one atm). Though still ts' sounds a tad more plausible to me than 't, especially since it would be likely that t' already existed in a Salish-esque proto-language and there would be no reason for a merger if it could easily be avoided.

[Wattmann]

An idea struck me for a pretty unlikely but plausible system:

Code: Select all

    t    k   ʔ
    d
m   n
  s  ʃ   x
  z  ʒ
    r

The vowels are a bit more even:

Code: Select all

i  iː         u  uː
ɛ  ɛː  ɜ  ɜː  ɔ  ɔː
a  aː

I wouldn't orthographicise it now, even though it would be easy.
I need your judgement on this: Should I press this on?

[Shrdlu]

Yes, do.

Also: the Tlingit natlang lacks both /p/ and /b/ and /m/ occurs as an allophone of /w/ in the interior(not coastal) dialects.

[Bristel]

snip.

I like how it lowers and diphthongizes the vowels near uvulars. That's my intention for Squalipsh, although it isn't as dense as your paradigm.

I don't have the backed schwa after a rounded uvular, though. I think...

I got most of my ideas from Halkomelem, but I'm trying to read more about Salishan and Wakashan to differentiate.