Post your conlang's phonology

[Maoti]

Nawok has 15 consonants and 7 vowels:

Consonants:
Plosive: p t k ʔ
Fricative: f s ɬ h
Nasal: m n ŋ
Approximant: l j w
Flap: ɾ

Vowels:
Close: i ɨ u
Mid: e̞ ə o̞
Open: ä


And Norpalic has 8 consonants and 4 vowels:

Consonants:
Plosive: p t ʔ
Nasal: m n
Approximant: l j w

Vowels:
Close: i
Mid: e̞ o̞
Open: ä

[David McCann]

Liburnese (Livurnez):
u o ɨ a i e
p b f v m
t d c ʒ s z l r n
č ǯ š ž
ʎ ɲ
k g
kʷ gʷ
This took me by surprise: a Romance language with labiovelars. I never intended them, they just turned up.

Paledhesi (North Semitic):
u o a i e
p v m
t d θ δ s z ɬ l n
y
k g h r

Tengol:
u ɨ i ~ o a e (± retracted tongue-root, with harmony)
p b f w m
t d t’ s r n
ƛ ƛ’ l
č ǯ č’ š y
k g k’ ŋ
ʔ h

[Drydic]

Nawok has 15 consonants and 7 vowels:

Consonants:
Plosive: p t k ʔ
Fricative: f s ɬ h
Nasal: m n ŋ
Approximant: l j w
Flap: ɾ

Vowels:
Close: i ɨ u
Mid: e̞ ə o̞
Open: ä


And Norpalic has 8 consonants and 4 vowels:

Consonants:
Plosive: p t ʔ
Nasal: m n
Approximant: l j w

Vowels:
Close: i
Mid: e̞ o̞
Open: ä

Why are you bothering with diacritics on vowels when you don't have anything to contrast them with? It just makes them annoying to type, especially since you're using a fucking lowering diacritic. And if you're trying to indicate their pronunciation then don't use ̈, since there's no [a] for it to be centralized from. And ɾ? Why not r?

[Jipí]

It just makes them annoying to type, especially since you're using a fucking lowering diacritic.

He could use [ɛ ɔ], but that's just as unsensible because there's nothing to contrast them with either. Also, this, on the previous page. I'm kind of afraid this misuse of IPA self-perpetuates because people tend to copy what they see if they don't have much of a clue themselves yet.

[äreo]

I had Ksso's protolangs' basic phonologies all nice and fleshed out, only for the board to make me log in again without being able to recover what I'd written :/

[Maoti]

Drydic Guy: I was using the diacritics just to show the correct pronunciation of the vowels. The vowels are not written in the orthography with the diacritics. They are written simply as a, e, i, o.

[Jipí]

Drydic Guy: I was using the diacritics just to show the correct pronunciation of the vowels.

And there's no variation between speakers, ever, and all IPA symbols are cast into stone and don't allow any leeway, especially not when transcribing phonemes.

[TaylorS]

French descendant:
/p b t d k g/
/m n ŋ/
/f v s z ʃ ʒ ç ts dz tʃ dʒ h/
/j l/
/a æ e i o u ø y/
/aː æː ɛi iː ɔu uː œy yː/

-initial clusters may include consecutive stops, in which case an epenthetic vowel may be added before it, as in /pti/ > [əptsi]
-/h/ does not occur finally, tho it often sandhis between vowels.
-/ŋ/ only occurs finally.
-/l/ is velarized (or even vocalized) in final position: /nuvel/ > [nuvɛw], /nɔumal/ > [nɤumaw]
-/æ e/ only contrast in open syllables; in closed syllables, one finds [ɛ].
-/o/ is [ɔ] in closed syllables.
-/æː/ doesn't occur before nasals.
-before final (that is, stressed) syllables, /a æ e o ø ɛi ɔu œy/ > [ɐ e i u y ei ɤu øy].
-final /p t k/ are often reduced to a glottal stop finally, or even completely elided before another consonant; final /b d g/ tend to devoice finally and before voiceless consonants: /septoub/ > [sɛʔtɔup]

Sample:
Je parle français.
[ʃpawfɤuˈsæ]
C'est parfaitement vrai.
[spɑːfɛmɤuˈvwæ]
Il faut l'attraper.
[folatʰɐˈpe]
Attrape-le!
[ɐˈtʰap̚lø]
Nous avons laissé la fenêtre ouverte.
[zavɔu̯leseləfnɛʔuˈvɛi̯ʔ]
Qu'est-ce que tu fait?
[skətsyˈfæ]
Rien.
[çæː]

WANT GRAMMAR, PLEASE!!!

[äreo]

OK, here's Ksso's 3000-year-old ancestor (it's not meant to be too developed - I just need the basic structure):
/p t k b d g/
/m n ŋ/
/f v s z h/
/r l/
/a e i o u a: e: i: o: u: ai oi au/

phonotactics:
-syllables may not end in /b d g v z r/
-no initial or final clusters
-/m/ only appears finally in loanwords

allophony:
-/h/ is often [x] finally
-/n/ tends to merge with /ŋ/ in final position
-/l/ is often velarized

A sentence for comparison:
Mi aitu mi tapaa suka hoa siizu nuu tuhuf kipe bukte lua ni so ku hoa siinu.
[mjai̯tumitapaːsukahɔə̯siːzunuːtuhufkipebukteluə̯nisokuhɔə̯siːnu]
in tea in coffee sugar ACC liked but here-time bit bitter more COMP like.that them ACC like
Aatsso ae mogeso sskapa kimmupi nui kvv'o peo puttelo 'so kimi.
[aːts̩so̝ae̯mo̝ŋɛso̝s̩ːkɑpɑkimːʉpinyːkf̩ːʔo̝pœø̯pʉt̪θɛlo̝ʔs̩okimi]
tea-COM and coffee-COM sugar-TOP.ACC like.PST-HAB but now-FOC a bit bitter-COMP them-ACC like

WANT GRAMMAR, PLEASE!!!

Still workin' on that bit

[----]

heyyy, I was going to do a French descendant!

[Maoti]

Okay perhaps I didn't use the best wording when I said "the correct pronunciation". What I meant is its the pronunciation that occurs most frequently.

[Okuno]

And there's no variation between speakers, ever, and all IPA symbols are cast into stone and don't allow any leeway, especially not when transcribing phonemes.

I dunno what you guys are all up in arms about...

If we consider that you might want to compare two languages, you might hope that the assumptions are roughly the same.

Why would I type /ɯ/ for proto-Likaku’ă when there's no /u/? Because on average, that phoneme is less rounded than the /u/ in Likaku’ă, and I'd like to compare the two languages in a consistent manner.

Same thing if you want to compare Japanese and Italian, you won't write /r/ in both, because that'd be stupid. You'd use /ɾ/ and /r/ in order to show that the languages have different "ideas" about rhotacism, even if occasionally Japanese /ɾ/>[r] and Italian /r/>/ɾ/.

In a thread with about a million phonologies juxtaposed, you'd think someone would want to do some comparisons between them, ya?

Especially if I see /r/ and pronounce it as a trill when it's meant to be ɹ or ɾ or ɽ or ɰ, or any of the other rhotics I can't remember how to access with this keyboard layout. Looking at you, Drydic.

Or, in my own experience, where I've had on average /ʃ/>[ʂ] in English, but in Japanese, it should totally be /ʃ/>[ʃ] or even [ʃʲ] most of the time. Learning that shit made me sound a ton more natural. I mean, except for the part where I don't know that much vocab T.T

And if you don't care a flying fuck, why do you care what symbols they're typed with? <mock>Ooes noes, there's a lowering diacritic! That means I can't tell what it's attached to!!1!</mock>

God, I must be bored; but at least I'm not bored enough to spite you all by posting a screencap of my Canepari-style phonosynthesis from Tayéin.


Having said all that, I do agree in part: if you post a phonology in a thread of its own, not significantly comparing it to anything else, then you can shove your /ä/.


EDIT: 2⁷ posts!
I need to knock off the CompSci <.<

[TaylorS]

heyyy, I was going to do a French descendant!

I'm thinking of doing a Spanish descendent some time.

[----]

I wonder what other languages would be fun to make descendants of...

[Nortaneous]

Got bored in one of my classes, so here's a slightly odd vowel inventory:

Code: Select all

i ɨ u
e ɵ ʊ
æ   ɒ

And a bit of historical explanation:

Code: Select all

      a ə i u
short ʊ æ e ɵ
long  ɒ ɨ i u

If I were to use this, it'd probably be in a heavily tonal lang with interesting diachronics and that weird African floating tone thing the name of which I can't remember, so you could have alternations like [kɒ˧˩] + [sɨ˥˧] [kʊ˥ɾɨ˥˧].

[Risla]

heyyy, I was going to do a French descendant!

I'm thinking of doing a Spanish descendent some time.

I've been vaguely plotting a Spanish descendant for ages now.

[ná'oolkiłí]

heyyy, I was going to do a French descendant!

I'm thinking of doing a Spanish descendent some time.

I've been vaguely plotting a Spanish descendant for ages now.

Yo también. Mine was just a complicated set of sound changes, so more of a cipher, I guess. I used to write notes in it all the time.

[Nortaneous]

Got bored in one of my classes, so here's a slightly odd vowel inventory:

Code: Select all

i ɨ u
e ɵ ʊ
æ   ɒ

And a bit of historical explanation:

Code: Select all

      a ə i u
short ʊ æ e ɵ
long  ɒ ɨ i u

If I were to use this, it'd probably be in a heavily tonal lang with interesting diachronics and that weird African floating tone thing the name of which I can't remember, so you could have alternations like [kɒ˧˩] + [sɨ˥˧] [kʊ˥ɾɨ˥˧].

This will be a Hathic lang. Probably a replacement for Kastas, since it sucks and I'm probably killing it. I'll also add a marginal vowel, /y/, which can only appear word-finally and breaks into /u/ or /ɵ/ + chroneme when a suffix is added.

Consonants:

Code: Select all

p t ʈ c k
m n ɳ ɲ ŋ
  s     ʁ

Syllable structure:
* /s/ cannot appear in clusters or initials, and /ʁ/ cannot be the first element in a cluster. When /ʁ/ occurs before a consonant, metathesis occurs.
* Initially, clusters of any two consonants are allowed, as long as they don't share a MOA or articulator. Geminated stops can also appear word-initially.
* Medially, any consonant can be geminated. CC and C:C clusters are allowed, subject to the same restrictions as initial clusters.
* Finally, any one consonant can appear.
* Vowel clusters are allowed.

Allophony:
* Pʁ clusters are realized as aspirated stops, sometimes with uvular constriction.
* Geminated stops are realized as long and aspirated word-initially. Some dialects merge these with Pʁ clusters.
* Intervocalically, nongeminated consonants are realized as voiced fricatives or approximants: /p t ʈ c k/ [β̞ ð̞ ɻ j ʁ]. (Nasal consonants are realized as the same, but with nasalization on the preceding vowel.) Geminated consonants are realized without length.
* Stops are voiced word-medially before /ʁ/. /ʁ/ can be dropped in that position.
* Approximants can color preceding short vowels in ways that I haven't worked out yet.
* Word-finally, stops are dropped, but short vowels still take coloring. /s/ drops and lengthens the preceding vowel.

Tones:
1. Low (˩)
2. Falling-rising (˧˩˦)
3. High falling (˥˧)
4. High (˥)
5. Low rising (˩˧)

There is also a floating high tone that appears in some grammatical forms, which combines with those tones in the following ways:
1. Low rising
2. Low rising
3. Falling-rising
4. High
5. Mid rising

Tone sandhi:
Tones can be grouped into two categories: low tones (1-3) and high tones (4-5). Tone sandhi occurs when a tone from one group occurs before a tone from the other group, in the following pattern:
1 5
2 3 (or 5, in some irregular words)
3 2
4 3
5 1

The effect of this is that, with the exception of tone 3, low tones cannot appear before high tones and vice versa. However, any tone can appear before tone 2 in lexical items and vice versa, since a high tone (mid falling) got merged into it. (In other words, there's low-high tone harmony in every word, but it's broken by tone 2.)

Orthography:
/ʊ æ e ɵ ɒ ɨ i u y/ <u a i o aa e ii uu ow>, nasals are written with
/p t ʈ c k s ʁ/ <p t r c k s h>, but fricative allophones are of /p t c/ are written <v d j>
/m n ɳ ɲ ŋ/ <m ṋ n nj/ņ/ń g>
Tone normally isn't written, but if it has to be, it's written as:
1: unmarked
2: breve
3: grave
4: acute
5: hook
Or with numbers. (Numbers are probably preferred. I'm not sure yet.)

Some examples:
/tʊʁ˧˩˦/ [tɒɐ̯˧˩˦] taah
/tʊʁ˧˩˦/ + /ʈɨ˥/ [tʊ˥˧ɖʁɨ˥] turhe
/cʁæ˥ʈe˧˩˦mːy˥˧/ [cʰɑ˞˥ɻe˧˩˦my˥˧] charimow
/cʁæ˥ʈe˧˩˦mːy˥˧/ + /tɨ˩/ [cʰɑ˞˥ɻe˧˩˦mɵ˧˩˦tɨ˩] charimotte
/mʈɵ˥˧ci˥ɳʊt˥/ [mɻɵ˥˧jĩ˥ɻʊʏ̯˥] mrojįįrut

[Přemysl]

Nghaza /ŋ͡ɣa˦za/

m͡b n͡d ŋ͡ɡ ŋ͡ɡʷ
b d ɡ ɡʷ
p t k kʷ
m n ŋ ŋʷ
m̥ n̥ nɡ̊ nɡ̊ʷ
ɱ͡v n͡z ŋ͡ɣ ŋ͡ʁʷ
v z ɣ ʁʷ
f s x h
l ɬ r r̥ j w
a e i o u ã ẽ ĩ õ ũ aː eː iː oː uː

short vowels may have a high or low tone
nasal vowels may have a falling or low tone
long vowels may be high, low, rising, or falling tone

yes its fairly Cartesian but this is the early in its growth

[Nortaneous]

why does the labiovelar series spontaneously end and get replaced by a uvular series

[Opera]

Disü

Consonants:
/m n ŋ ɴ/
/p b t d ts dz k g q ɢ ʔ/
/pʲ bʲ tʲ dʲ tsʲ dzʲ kʲ gʲ qʲ ɢʲ/
/pʷ bʷ tʷ dʷ tsʷ dzʷ kʷ gʷ qʷ ɢʷ/
/s z ɬ ɮ x ɣ χ ʁ/
/sʲ zʲ ɬʲ ɮʲ xʲ ɣʲ χʲ ʁʲ/
/sʷ zʷ ɬʷ ɮʷ xʷ ɣʷ χʷ ʁʷ/

Vowels:
/i y u i: y: u:/
/a ɒ a: ɒ:/

Tones:
í = high tone
ī = middle tone
ì = low tone

(granted, I could just write <i> for the middle tone)

Phonotactics:
CV(C) with no restriction on which consonant can be used in any of those two positions.
In case of a medial consonant cluster, it is broken up by /a/.
In case two vowels aren't separated by a consonant, a /ʔ/ is inserted between them.

Of course, it leads to pretty ridiculously transliterated words, even though it's not set in stone yet:
kyi3.khiiqh3 /k^jìxì:χ/
khwyytsw1 /x^wý:ts^w/

Spare me for using diacritics as tone markers in the IPA.

The grammar is quite not done yet but if it may reassure some of you, it's no Chinese clone. I'm rather going the agglutinative way -- so I can write more awesomely unreadable words!

[Přemysl]

why does the labiovelar series spontaneously end and get replaced by a uvular series

Woops those should be labio-velars being replaced by labio-uvulars. The labiovelars are are nearly post velar to begin with, an effect of the [grave] nature of the labialization. The fricative series have an element of retraction. I felt the two elements together would drag it back to uvular. Some sister langs have done other things, such as keeping the labiovelars or having all the labiovelars become labiouvular then losing the labialization. It probably utter linguistic horsecrap but it makes sense to me.

[Kvan]

I struggled for a bit to put this into Code but it was too tiresome and I have little time before I go into work so I'm opting for good old fashioned // and <>

So I have been working out the grammar of Leþwin for some time. I've mapped out the verb template and I'm currently working on the morphemes and how they're phonologically affected when incorporated. I was then going through and noticed the thread about making a non-SAE phonology. And I realized that I had a heavily leaning European-styled phonology. I'm going to simply do away with voiced stops (plosives and affricates) and rely on an aspirated/unaspirated/ejective system which will then lend credibility to the presence of the creaky phonation (which was already present anyway). Furthermore I'm using the breathy phonation as well.

Leþwin
Nasals /m n ŋ nʷ ŋʷ/
Plosives /pʰ tʰ kʰ qʰ tʷʰ kʷʰ qʷʰ p t k q tʷ kʷ qʷ/
Ejectives /kʼ qʼ/
Affricates /tsʰ ʧʰ tɬʰ tsʷʰ ʧʷʰ tɬʷʰ ts tsʷ ʧ ʧʷ tɬ tɬʷ/
Fricatives & Approximants ʋ ɹ θ s ʃ x ɹʷ θʷ xʷ l~ɬ ʎ~ʎ̥˔ lʷ~ɬʷ ʎʷ~ʎ̥˔ʷ
Trills & Taps r~ɾ

A few notes:
I'm not sure how plausible it is, but I wanted to make a sort of lateral-continuum between fricatives and approximants. So it stands that l~ɬ are allophones as are ʎ~ʎ̥˔ (the latter of which is supposed to represent a voiceless lateral palatal fricative). I'd like some input, on whether or not it's reasonable, or simply uninteresting

Also, there are some important allophones of sonorants, which is that they can be realized as creaky. This is thought to have been caused by the ejectives creating creakiness in the following vowels, once the creakiness distinction broke away from its dependence on the ejectives and stood alone as a phonation distinction it then rubbed off on preceding sonorants. Sonorants then took on the distinction themselves. I'm thinking of making them syllabic, but it's still up in the air.

Taps and trills are treated as allophones of the same sound and it might be important to note that the trill has an often used allophonic vaiant.

I'm also rather interested in adding the dually articulated kp, but my language has enough idiosyncrasy thus far. At most I'll have it occur allophonically if at all.

Now for the vowels:
/i y ɛ~e̞ œ~ø̞ æ ɑ o u/

Yeah, it's a bit rough around the edges. And one thing I would like to do is get rid of /u/ but I'm unsure if this is attested in other languages, I see that typically languages have at least /i u a/. Seeing as though it may be a staple of phonemic inventories I ought to keep it.

I'm not familiar with languages that use the creaky/breathy contrasts from modal voicing in their vowels but do they usually form perfect sets or perhaps a better way to put it would be to ask do I have three times the number of the vowels I listed above? One modal series, one breathy and one creaky or do the other phonations obscure qualities that would be integral to the hearing and understanding of the vowels and thus create gaps? I.e. is there a modal y, but for instance no creaky one? I was going to have a complete set of modal, breathy and creaky but once I looked at it on paper it didn't seem right.

(Sorry to have devolved into just asking a slew of questions)
Edit: I forgot to mention that the lack of sʷ ʃʷ were caused by a merger into tsʷ and tʃʷ.

[Risla]

I'm not sure how plausible it is, but I wanted to make a sort of lateral-continuum between fricatives and approximants. So it stands that l~ɬ are allophones as are ʎ~ʎ̥˔ (the latter of which is supposed to represent a voiceless lateral palatal fricative). I'd like some input, on whether or not it's reasonable, or simply uninteresting

That's attested in Nahuatl at least. It's also attested in South Eresian, which is a language I'm quite fond of.

[Kvan]

Doubly attested, Kvan approved.

Allophones definitely help me save on phoneme count on my already cumbersome phonology. Not to mention using regular l and not having to worry about another diacritic is wonderful. If there's one thing I hate it's l's inability to form an aesthetically pleasing relationship with a diacritic.