Post your conlang's phonology

[----]

1. Wouldn't it be a lot cooler to add in tone, where some tones include creakiness or breathiness (or an intermediate glottal stop or a half-creaky, half modal vowel or other such fun things)? This is what Vietnamese does, for example. A system like that would sound a lot more southeast-asiany to me.
2. No falling diphtongs before stops in coda position sounds like a plausible rule to me, but why not make it a consequent rule?

Well I didn't want to make it too much of a rip-off, and I was thinking about that today. What I was planning on doing is making register the phonemic difference, but words would have different tones that would arise from the different distinctions. For instance, a creaky voiced syllable that ended in a stop could have a sharply rising tone or something.
I'm not sure what you mean by consequent rule.

[Wattmann]

I'm not sure what you mean by consequent rule.

I believe it's a rule that results from another rule, a consequence.

[Lyktorna]

Well, I'd like to see how it could be improved.

I cobbled this together in like 4 minutes, so it sucks, I know. I also cannot make Native American/Caucasian inventories to save my life.

Perhaps if you spent more than "like 4 minutes" refining it and (as roninbodhisattva said) looking into what you're trying to imitate, the results would be a bit more aesthetically pleasing and/or accurate (starting links below - seriously, Wikipedia is your friend).

Also, what does 'Native American' mean? While I know almost nothing about most of those languages, I own dictionaries of Tlingit and Inupiaq and can tell you that they are extremely different. Which family's feel are you going for?

Some things to think about:
-Where are your ejectives?
-Why do you have so few fricatives?
-Why so many distinctions among stops?
-Where did you get that vowel inventory?
-Why so many nasals?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tlingit_language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_language

[Zwap]

I thought I'd try writing down the current state of Doon phonology. This is the result, not to be regarded as either final nor complete.

Code: Select all

i     ɯ
 e   ʌ
   a

je ja jʌ jɯ
ej aj ʌj ɯj

m n
p pʰ b t tʰ d k kʰ g
f v    s      x      h
ɾ
l
w

p͡f t͡s k͡x

-/i/ becomes [j] when following another vowel, creating a diphtong.
-/ʌa/ becomes [wɑ] when preceded by non-aspirated stops and nasals, any other combination of vowels would be treated as multiple syllables.

Syllabic consonants:
Fricatives (with the exception of /h/), nasals and /l/ can take the place of the nucleus in a syllable.

Length:
All phonemes, vowels as well as consonants, except /ɾ h w/, aspirated or vocalized stops and affricatives can be lengthened intervocally. Fricatives (h not included), nasals and /l/ can be lengthened as onsets and codas as well, but are probably better analyzed as being syllabic when in the onset position.

Syllable structure:
(C) V/S (N/H) (T) (F)
C - any consonant.
V - any vowel, pre- or postpalatalized.
S - syllabic consonant as described above.
N - nasals.
H - fricatives, /h/ included.
T - any non-aspirated stop.
F - fricatives, /h/ not included.
All consonants are accepted as onsets. /kt/ and /tɾ/ are also accepted onsets. The nucleus can be either a vowel or a syllabic consonant, as described above.
The coda cannot include an aspirated stop. Roots can not have a final fricative postceding (is this a word?) a stop, but it is allowed and happens when case suffixes are attached.

Stress:
Stress is always on the first syllable of a word. Prefixes do not move the stress however, so <fisáte> "thumb" is /ˈfisjate/ while <co-fisáte> "other thumb" is /xʌˈfisjate/.


Examples of monosyllabic words:
<khahv> /kʰahv/ - subject.NOM
<trai> /tɾaj/ - fire
<css> /xs̩/ - wind
<é> /je/ - wish

Examples of polysyllabic words:
<ékki> /jekːi/ - friend
<ktanna> /ktanːa/ - barrier, wall
<sókim> /sʲʌkim/ - grandeur.INST ("with grandeur")
<ie> /i.e/ - one

Some things I'm unsure about:
The number of fricatives compared to stops. I like it the way it is, but is it plausible?
/kt/, it's been there since the very beginning, but I feel like the rest of the language might not have followed in the same steps.
No unrounded vowels. I've found several languages like this, but neither have had a well documented phonology as far as I can see. Should there be more allophony?

I think that's it for now!

[Chagen]

Some things to think about:
-Where are your ejectives?
-Why do you have so few fricatives?
-Why so many distinctions among stops?
-Where did you get that vowel inventory?
-Why so many nasals?

- What do you mean? Are you asking how they pattern? Or are you actually asking about implosives?

- To be non-SAE

- I dunno. Lack of fricatives had to be made up with something

- I dunno yet. Perhaps a tone system was lost (would this even result in new vowels? I know tone genesis from loss of vowels is attested) or a /i e a o u/ system went through a chain shift.

-to be non-SAE

[Lyktorna]

Some things to think about:
-Where are your ejectives?
-Why do you have so few fricatives?
-Why so many distinctions among stops?
-Where did you get that vowel inventory?
-Why so many nasals?

- What do you mean? Are you asking how they pattern? Or are you actually asking about implosives?

- To be non-SAE

- I dunno. Lack of fricatives had to be made up with something

- I dunno yet. Perhaps a tone system was lost (would this even result in new vowels? I know tone genesis from loss of vowels is attested) or a /i e a o u/ system went through a chain shift.

-to be non-SAE

Do you really want to have a Caucasian/Native American-esque phonology or just an anti-SAE one? My understanding was that you wanted it to be Native American/Caucasian-ish. SAE overlaps with pretty much everything in some way. If you're more interested in rebelling against SAE, the following might not be helpful.

Ejectives - Oh gods I'm an idiot - they were there and I think I even saw them before posting. Sorry about that. Depending on which family you're trying to emulate, you might add some ejective affricates or fricatives too. Georgian has /ts' tʃʼ/; Tlingit has a shitton of ejective fricatives.
Fricatives - Depending on which Native American/Caucasian group you're going after, you might want more. Georgian and Tlingit both have /x/, for example.
Stops - Georgian has an aspirated-voiced-ejective distinction /t^h d t'/; Tlingit has a plain-aspirated-ejective distinction /t t^h t'/ and a labialization distinction at iirc the velar and uvular POAs.
Vowels - That works I guess. (But all those vowel phonemes? I think that's pretty SAE.)
Nasals - I'd think it would be rare to have all the POAs have phonemic nasals. Very unusual typologically. (Tlingit has only one or two phonemic nasals over five/six POAs- /(m) n/, Georgian has only those two.)

[Chagen]

Do you really want to have a Caucasian/Native American-esque phonology or just an anti-SAE one? My understanding was that you wanted it to be Native American/Caucasian-ish. SAE overlaps with pretty much everything in some way. If you're more interested in rebelling against SAE, the following might not be helpful.

Ejectives - Oh gods I'm an idiot - they were there and I think I even saw them before posting. Sorry about that. Depending on which family you're trying to emulate, you might add some ejective affricates or fricatives too. Georgian has /ts' tʃʼ/; Tlingit has a shitton of ejective fricatives.
Fricatives - Depending on which Native American/Caucasian group you're going after, you might want more. Georgian and Tlingit both have /x/, for example.
Stops - Georgian has an aspirated-voiced-ejective distinction /t^h d t'/; Tlingit has a plain-aspirated-ejective distinction /t t^h t'/ and a labialization distinction at iirc the velar and uvular POAs.
Vowels - That works I guess. (But all those vowel phonemes? I think that's pretty SAE.)
Nasals - I'd think it would be rare to have all the POAs have phonemic nasals. Very unusual typologically. (Tlingit has only one or two phonemic nasals over five/six POAs- /(m) n/, Georgian has only those two.)

-Aren't ejectice fricatives less salient than ejective stops? I may go for ejective affricates, though.

-I guess some more fricatives could be nice. I just don't want to get kitchen-sinky.

-I think I'll go the Tlingit route

-I don't see the problem with the vowels. I'll either reduce them or go ridiculous (i.e like 14 different vowels or some shit like that)

-Okay, maybe I can get rid of the uvular nasal. Maybe the palatal as well.

[Lyktorna]

So what does it look like now?

[Chagen]

I can't exactly work on it, being that I am only on a Iphone right now....

But I do have a few things:

-There will be laterals beyond /l/

-The fricative inventory will probably /f s ç x/

-There will be "horned ejectives". These are done like normal ejectives, except instead of closing the glottis, the openings in the demon's horn are closed off while the stop is held. When the stop is released, the openings are opened, rushing air into them and creating a very distinct sound (human speakers are taught to replace them with normal implosives). Because the openings are around the Palate, they show up most frequently with the palatal consonants.

[Wattmann]

-There will be "horned ejectives". These are done like normal ejectives, except instead of closing the glottis, the openings in the demon's horn are closed off while the stop is held. When the stop is released, the openings are opened, rushing air into them and creating a very distinct sound (human speakers are taught to replace them with normal implosives). Because the openings are around the Palate, they show up most frequently with the palatal consonants.

Horns don't have openings. They're mostly made up of keratin with a bone core

[Chagen]

>Assuming that demon horns are going to be exactly like real-life horns

[Wattmann]

>Assuming that demon horns are going to be exactly like real-life horns

No, that is the actual definition of "horn"
It's like saying "humans, just purple masses of sludge that has nineteen tentacles"
Of course, if you can provide a neat justification...
NO RULE OF COOL

[----]

If it's not a horn, then what is it?

[Zwap]

-There will be "horned ejectives". These are done like normal ejectives, except instead of closing the glottis, the openings in the demon's horn are closed off while the stop is held. When the stop is released, the openings are opened, rushing air into them and creating a very distinct sound (human speakers are taught to replace them with normal implosives). Because the openings are around the Palate, they show up most frequently with the palatal consonants.

Horns don't have openings. They're mostly made up of keratin with a bone core

Hands have five fingers.
Females don't have penises.
Leaves are green.

(These are examples of stupid statements without reference or justification, not to be considered facts)

Your statement applies in some cases, yes. It might even apply to all cases on earth. It does not, however, apply to the demons in Chagens conworld. Horns are not defined as without exceptions thoroughly solid objects, and they don't have to be such.

[Chagen]

If it's not a horn, then what is it?

Well, it LOOKS like a horn, at the very least.

It's a hollow projection of tough material from the head of the demon. Some of them have long straight one, others very short ones, and another variety (which is also considered to be very attractive) is curved "ram's horns".

They're basically useless, and aren't really used anymore (similar to their wings--demons have wings, but they've atrophied to uselessness due to lack of use).

How DO you justify a fantasy creature's physiology anyway?

[----]

Well something that is unlikely to evolve because it would be an overall disadvantage to the species is the kind of thing that would be something you would leave out of your fantasy creature's physiology. I don't think these pseudo-horns are that kind of thing.

[Whimemsz]

You can find somewhat similar things on Earth, although they're not actually "horns", for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasaurol ... nial_crest

[Wattmann]

How DO you justify a fantasy creature's physiology anyway?

Evolutionarily.
I have mammaloid reptillians because they are evolutions of prehistoric mammaloid reptillians.

[Chagen]

How DO you justify a fantasy creature's physiology anyway?

Evolutionarily.
I have mammaloid reptillians because they are evolutions of prehistoric mammaloid reptillians.

Well, demons didn't evolve. They were created.

I'm not a creationist, by the way: Basically, Demon's in my conworld are actually embodiements of us Humans' capability for violence, evil, and hatred, that eventually gained sentience entirely.

[finlay]

you don't need to be a creationist to write about beings that were created... in a fantasy world...

[Chagen]

I know, but I've been on the internet enough to know that you need to guard against even the most ridiculous arguements sometimes.

[Skomakar'n]

Taking all the allophones into account, these are the sounds that can be heard in the main dialect of my language Vanga (dictionary here), as far as I know. Some of them only occur in certain clusters with other ones, and a lot of them do not contrast, because they are, like said, allophones of other phonemes and and not actual phonemes in their own right. Therefore everything is presented between brackets and not slashes.

Code: Select all

MONOPHTHONGS:
 
[aː a ɑ ã ɛː ɛ ɛ̃ iː ɪ ĩ ʊː ʊ ʊ̃ yː ʏ ỹ æː æ œ ɔː ɔ ɔ̃]
⟨á a/æ a ą é/á e/a ę/ą í i į ú/í u/i ų/į ý y y̨ ǽ æ œ/y ó o/œ ǫ⟩

DIPHTHONGS:

[a͡ɪ ã͡ɪ̃ a͡ʊ ã͡ʊ̃ ɛ͡ɪ ɛ̃͡ɪ̃ ɛ͡ʏ ɛ̃͡ʏ̃ ɔ͡ɪ ɔ̃͡ɪ̃ ɔ͡ʊ ɔ̃͡ʊ̃ ɔ͡ʏ ɔ̃͡ʏ̃ æ͡ɪ æ͡ʏ œ͡ʊ œ͡ʏ ʊ͡ɪ ʊ̃͡ɪ̃]
⟨ai ąi au ąu ei ęi ey ęy oi ǫi ou ǫu oy ǫy æi æy œu œy ui/í/i ųi/į⟩

TRIPHTHONG:
 
[ɪ̯œ͡ʊ]
⟨ieu⟩

HALF-DIPHTHONGS:
 
[ʊw ʊwː ʊːw ʊːwː]
⟨uw/iu/iw uww/iuw/iuww/iww úw/íw úww/íww⟩

NON-GEMINATED CONSONANTS:
 
[p t k q f ɸ ð θɣ ɡ h ɧ ɧ̽ ç j w ʍ v l l̥ ʎ̥ m m̥ ɱ ɱ̊ n n̥ ŋ ŋ̊ s̻ z ɕ ʑ]
⟨p t/d k q f f d d g g h h h hj j/d/g w/d/g w v l ḷ/l ḷj/lj m ṃ m ṃ n ṇ nn ṇn s z ss zz⟩

GEMINATED CONSONANTS:
 
[pː tː kː qː ɸː ðː θː ɣː ɧː çː jː wː lː l̥ː mː nː ŋː ɕː ʑː]
⟨pp tt kk qq ff dd dd gg hh hhj jj ww/uw ld ll mm nd nnj ssj zzj⟩

SYLLABIC CONSONANTS:
 
[l̩ m̩ n̩ ŋ̩ s̻̩ z̩ ɕ̩ ʑ̩]
⟨ĺ ḿ ń ńn ś ź śs źz⟩

[Drydic]

add pharyngealized vowels and labialized consonants

[Skomakar'n]

add pharyngealized vowels and labialized consonants

;p

I know it's a lot, but like I said, not all of these are phonemes. Let's see...

Code: Select all

MONOPHTHONGS:
 
/aː aː ã ɛː ɛ ɛ̃ iː i ĩ ʊː ʊ ʊ̃ yː y ỹ æː æ œ oː o õ/

DIPHTHONGS:

/a͡i ã͡ĩ a͡u ã͡ũ e͡i ẽ͡ĩ e͡y ẽ͡ỹ o͡i õ͡ĩ o͡u õ͡ũ o͡y õ͡ỹ æ͡i æ͡y œ͡u œ͡y i͡u/

TRIPHTHONG:
 
/i̯e͡u/

HALF-DIPHTHONGS:
 
/ʊw ʊwː ʊːw ʊːwː ij iːj ijː iːjː/

NON-GEMINATED CONSONANTS:
 
/p t k q f d ɡ h j w v l l̥ m m̥ n n̥ ŋ ŋ̊ s̻ z ɕ ʑ/

GEMINATED CONSONANTS:
 
/tː kː qː fː dː gː hː jː wː lː mː ŋː ɕː ʑː/

SYLLABIC CONSONANTS:
 
/l̩ m̩ n̩ ŋ̩ s̻̩ z̩ ɕ̩ ʑ̩/

Still not the smallest inventory (shitload of vowels, for example, but Germanic languages or French or to some extent Finno-Ugric ones aren't that much better) but still smaller.

Worth mentioning is that I'm not sure what to mark /p f w v/ as. /f/ is definitely a phoneme in it's own right, but /p/ only occurs as an allophone of /f/ or /v w/ (/w/ and /v/ are allophones of each other, I suppose), although both /w p/ are shown orthographically (actually /w v/ have the same letter in the native script, so maybe I should use the same glyph for /f p/ too), but they don't contrast at all.

[prettydragoon]

Rireinutire:

Code: Select all

Vowels

/ɑ i u e o/ 	<a i u e o>

Consonants

plosive		/p t k Ɂ/ <p t k '>
nasal	     /m n ŋ/   <m n ñ>
fricative    /v s h/   <v s h>
approximant  /ɹ j/     <r y>

Edit:
Syllable structure: (C) V (Ɂ)

The voiceless glottal plosive /Ɂ/ is only permitted as coda of a word-final syllable.