Please Comment on what I have
- Taurenzine
- cuneiform
- Posts: 195
- Joined: 03 Oct 2016 17:29
Re: Please Comment on what I have
So now I have to sort each combo using the things I have on the right. it's gonna take a while...
Re: Please Comment on what I have
Good stuff. When I did that I found it easier to actually make the graph first and only fill in the clusters I wanted instead of removing the ones I don't want but you're here now. :) You may want a chart for syllable onset and coda.
- Taurenzine
- cuneiform
- Posts: 195
- Joined: 03 Oct 2016 17:29
Re: Please Comment on what I have
You made is sound quite a bit simpler now that you've said that. I'm too far into it so I'm gonna finish the chart but if I had taken the time to think that way I definitely wouldn't have done it the way I did. it terms of Onset and coda syllable structure, I think I'm gonna go for either a (C)(C)(V)(C)(C) aka (C2)(V)(C2) or a (C)(C)(V)(C)(C)(C) aka(C2)(V)(C3).Nachtuil wrote:Good stuff. When I did that I found it easier to actually make the graph first and only fill in the clusters I wanted instead of removing the ones I don't want but you're here now. :) You may want a chart for syllable onset and coda.
- Taurenzine
- cuneiform
- Posts: 195
- Joined: 03 Oct 2016 17:29
Re: Please Comment on what I have
I need some help actually. Anyone who see's this post, please tell me if you think the order of these consonants makes sense (Which ones are the quietest to which ones are the loudest) and if you don't think something fits, please tell me about it, so I can fix it.
Re: Please Comment on what I have
This type of thing has actually been studied a bit. There is a thing called a sonority hierarchy.
Typically it goes as follows from loudest to quietest with examples of each:
1. Vowels /a/ /i/ /o/
2. Approximants (glides, liquids and trills) /w/ /j/ /l/ /r/
3. Nasals /n/ /m/
4. Fricatives /f/ /s/ /v/
5. Affricates /t͡ʃ/ /d͡ʒ/
6. Stops/Plosives /p/ /t/ /k/
Here is more information:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonority_hierarchy
A lot of languages pay attention to this when deciding on syllable structure. Commonly, lower sonority sounds will be at the edges and vowels of course are in the centre so sonority rises and then falls over a syllable. A good example might be "Tsump" with the loudest part of the syllable being in the centre. Some languages allow breaking of this like english does with clusters like "st" and "sk" in onset, like "stop" and "sky"
To your specific question, it would make sense then that your stops would be at one end, followed by affricates, followed by fricatives, followed by nasals, and then followed by your approximates. That would be the orthodox expectation. It is not exactly that simple however due to other factors such as secondary articulations like aspiration. If you notice in English for exampe the /p/ in "pot" is louder than the p in "soup" as the first is aspirated and the second plain. I would venture to guess that voiced consonants are louder than their unvoiced counterparts. Ejective articulation might make a consonant louder than the plain version too.
I hope that helps. I can manually show you how I would rearrange your list if you need, I just don't want to do it on the electronic device I am currently using. I notice you do place your voiced consonants in a louder position than your unvoiced which is totally good. It is entirely possible that in your language the sonority hierarchy conforms to how you've described it too so I wouldn't worry about it all too much. It depends what you plan to do with it.
Edit: here is a ranking for English found on the Wikipedia page I linked above:
[a] > [e o] > > [r] > [l] > [m n ŋ] > [z v ð] > [s f θ] > [b d ɡ] > [p t k]
Notice how it neatly follows the sonority hierarchy more or less although it does not list semi vowels and affricates.
Typically it goes as follows from loudest to quietest with examples of each:
1. Vowels /a/ /i/ /o/
2. Approximants (glides, liquids and trills) /w/ /j/ /l/ /r/
3. Nasals /n/ /m/
4. Fricatives /f/ /s/ /v/
5. Affricates /t͡ʃ/ /d͡ʒ/
6. Stops/Plosives /p/ /t/ /k/
Here is more information:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonority_hierarchy
A lot of languages pay attention to this when deciding on syllable structure. Commonly, lower sonority sounds will be at the edges and vowels of course are in the centre so sonority rises and then falls over a syllable. A good example might be "Tsump" with the loudest part of the syllable being in the centre. Some languages allow breaking of this like english does with clusters like "st" and "sk" in onset, like "stop" and "sky"
To your specific question, it would make sense then that your stops would be at one end, followed by affricates, followed by fricatives, followed by nasals, and then followed by your approximates. That would be the orthodox expectation. It is not exactly that simple however due to other factors such as secondary articulations like aspiration. If you notice in English for exampe the /p/ in "pot" is louder than the p in "soup" as the first is aspirated and the second plain. I would venture to guess that voiced consonants are louder than their unvoiced counterparts. Ejective articulation might make a consonant louder than the plain version too.
I hope that helps. I can manually show you how I would rearrange your list if you need, I just don't want to do it on the electronic device I am currently using. I notice you do place your voiced consonants in a louder position than your unvoiced which is totally good. It is entirely possible that in your language the sonority hierarchy conforms to how you've described it too so I wouldn't worry about it all too much. It depends what you plan to do with it.
Edit: here is a ranking for English found on the Wikipedia page I linked above:
[a] > [e o] > > [r] > [l] > [m n ŋ] > [z v ð] > [s f θ] > [b d ɡ] > [p t k]
Notice how it neatly follows the sonority hierarchy more or less although it does not list semi vowels and affricates.
- Frislander
- mayan
- Posts: 2088
- Joined: 14 May 2016 18:47
- Location: The North
Re: Please Comment on what I have
Nachtuil wrote:Edit: here is a ranking for English found on the Wikipedia page I linked above:
[a] > [e o] > > [r] > [l] > [m n ŋ] > [z v ð] > [s f θ] > [b d ɡ] > [p t k]
Notice how it neatly follows the sonority hierarchy more or less although it does not list semi vowels and affricates.
Yet more "English has five vowels". Ugh, I'm sick of it.
Re: Please Comment on what I have
Frislander wrote:Nachtuil wrote:Edit: here is a ranking for English found on the Wikipedia page I linked above:
[a] > [e o] > > [r] > [l] > [m n ŋ] > [z v ð] > [s f θ] > [b d ɡ] > [p t k]
Notice how it neatly follows the sonority hierarchy more or less although it does not list semi vowels and affricates.
Yet more "English has five vowels". Ugh, I'm sick of it.
Yeah, I wonder if it is ignorance or a deliberate but sloppy simplification on the part of the editor. On the one hand it leaves out a few consonants so it may be a deliberate selection but on the other I don't know a dialect of English that actually has /o/ and /u/.
-
- mayan
- Posts: 2080
- Joined: 11 Jan 2015 23:22
- Location: USA
Re: Please Comment on what I have
Nachtuil wrote:Frislander wrote:Nachtuil wrote:Edit: here is a ranking for English found on the Wikipedia page I linked above:
[a] > [e o] > > [r] > [l] > [m n ŋ] > [z v ð] > [s f θ] > [b d ɡ] > [p t k]
Notice how it neatly follows the sonority hierarchy more or less although it does not list semi vowels and affricates.
Yet more "English has five vowels". Ugh, I'm sick of it.
Yeah, I wonder if it is ignorance or a deliberate but sloppy simplification on the part of the editor. On the one hand it leaves out a few consonants so it may be a deliberate selection but on the other I don't know a dialect of English that actually has /o/ and /u/.
Most dialects of English have /u/ in words like <boot> /but/, even if it's phonetically more front and/or diphthongized than the of most languages. /o/ could be a way of transcribing what would normally be transcribed as /oʊ̯/ or /əʊ̯/, but there are some dialects of English that actually have [o] for that phoneme, such as Scottish English.
Re: Please Comment on what I have
GrandPiano wrote:Nachtuil wrote:Frislander wrote:Nachtuil wrote:Edit: here is a ranking for English found on the Wikipedia page I linked above:
[a] > [e o] > > [r] > [l] > [m n ŋ] > [z v ð] > [s f θ] > [b d ɡ] > [p t k]
Notice how it neatly follows the sonority hierarchy more or less although it does not list semi vowels and affricates.
Yet more "English has five vowels". Ugh, I'm sick of it.
Yeah, I wonder if it is ignorance or a deliberate but sloppy simplification on the part of the editor. On the one hand it leaves out a few consonants so it may be a deliberate selection but on the other I don't know a dialect of English that actually has /o/ and /u/.
Most dialects of English have /u/ in words like <boot> /but/, even if it's phonetically more front and/or diphthongized than the of most languages. /o/ could be a way of transcribing what would normally be transcribed as /oʊ̯/ or /əʊ̯/, but there are some dialects of English that actually have [o] for that phoneme, such as Scottish English.
Fair enough. My dialect only has /u:/ but maybe I am silly to be overly technical since that is still a variation of /u/.
Taurezine, you may find you'll greatly restrict your possible clusters based on voicing. It is common for languages to only have voiced fricatives, affricatea and plosives clustered with voiced and unvoiced with unvoiced. /Zest/ or /zezd/ is a lot easier to say than /zezt/ or /zesd/ for many people.
-
- mayan
- Posts: 2080
- Joined: 11 Jan 2015 23:22
- Location: USA
Re: Please Comment on what I have
Nachtuil wrote:GrandPiano wrote:Nachtuil wrote:Frislander wrote:Nachtuil wrote:Edit: here is a ranking for English found on the Wikipedia page I linked above:
[a] > [e o] > > [r] > [l] > [m n ŋ] > [z v ð] > [s f θ] > [b d ɡ] > [p t k]
Notice how it neatly follows the sonority hierarchy more or less although it does not list semi vowels and affricates.
Yet more "English has five vowels". Ugh, I'm sick of it.
Yeah, I wonder if it is ignorance or a deliberate but sloppy simplification on the part of the editor. On the one hand it leaves out a few consonants so it may be a deliberate selection but on the other I don't know a dialect of English that actually has /o/ and /u/.
Most dialects of English have /u/ in words like <boot> /but/, even if it's phonetically more front and/or diphthongized than the of most languages. /o/ could be a way of transcribing what would normally be transcribed as /oʊ̯/ or /əʊ̯/, but there are some dialects of English that actually have [o] for that phoneme, such as Scottish English.
Fair enough. My dialect only has /u:/ but maybe I am silly to be overly technical since that is still a variation of /u/.
In most dialects it would be more accurately transcribed as [uː], but I'm ignoring length because it's not a major distinguishing feature of English vowels (short would usually be interpreted as /uː/ and long [ʊː] would usually be interpreted as /ʊ/). If I were including minor phonetic details like that, I might as well write /u̟ː/ or /ʊu̯/.
Re: Please Comment on what I have
GrandPiano wrote:In most dialects it would be more accurately transcribed as [uː], but I'm ignoring length because it's not a major distinguishing feature of English vowels (short would usually be interpreted as /uː/ and long [ʊː] would usually be interpreted as /ʊ/). If I were including minor phonetic details like that, I might as well write /u̟ː/ or /ʊu̯/.Nachtuil wrote: Fair enough. My dialect only has /u:/ but maybe I am silly to be overly technical since that is still a variation of /u/.
You may have misread what I wrote.
- Taurenzine
- cuneiform
- Posts: 195
- Joined: 03 Oct 2016 17:29
Re: Please Comment on what I have
Some of my phonotactics....
Re: Please Comment on what I have
Are you just doing CVC syllable structure then? Nothing wrong with that. You may next want to consider if there are sound changes when you have different codas and wonders adjacent like the voicing rules as mentioned before. I think it is pleasantly interesting you have no rhotics in coda.
- Taurenzine
- cuneiform
- Posts: 195
- Joined: 03 Oct 2016 17:29
Re: Please Comment on what I have
Actually I was gonna go for CCVCC. this is just for the single consonants. I'm gonna be posting a lot of incomplete stuff on here, but thanks for supporting me.Nachtuil wrote:Are you just doing CVC syllable structure then? Nothing wrong with that. You may next want to consider if there are sound changes when you have different codas and wonders adjacent like the voicing rules as mentioned before. I think it is pleasantly interesting you have no rhotics in coda.
- Taurenzine
- cuneiform
- Posts: 195
- Joined: 03 Oct 2016 17:29
Re: Please Comment on what I have
These are my CODA Consonants Clusters. and yes, I said Coda. Weirdly enough I did coda first, not the Onset clusters.
- Taurenzine
- cuneiform
- Posts: 195
- Joined: 03 Oct 2016 17:29
Re: Please Comment on what I have
These are my onset clusters. and yes its a CCVCC language, this language that is.
Re: Please Comment on what I have
The gap in initial Cl clusters starting with the plosives (/p b k g t d/) strikes me as unusual. I'd guess one sound change speakers of this language would be prone to is de-nasalization of onset /ml/ to /bl/. (maybe also /nl/ > /dl/ and /ŋl/ > /gl/, but I'm not sure about the first because clusters like /dl/ are sometimes disfavored due to the similarity in place of /d/ and /l/, and initial /ŋ/ is rare enough that I don't have a good sense for what sound changes it is prone to)
-
- mayan
- Posts: 2080
- Joined: 11 Jan 2015 23:22
- Location: USA
Re: Please Comment on what I have
Wouldn't /nl/ be disfavored for the same reason? If anything, I'd think that /dl/ would be more favored than /nl/ since /n/ and /l/ are both sonorants while /d/ isn't.Sumelic wrote:but I'm not sure about the first because clusters like /dl/ are sometimes disfavored due to the similarity in place of /d/ and /l/
Re: Please Comment on what I have
I don't really know. Probably onset /nl/ would also be disfavored for the same reason, but perhaps it would be likely to be resolved via some other kind of sound change, like syllabifying the /n/, adding a prothetic vowel or something like that.GrandPiano wrote:Wouldn't /nl/ be disfavored for the same reason? If anything, I'd think that /dl/ would be more favored than /nl/ since /n/ and /l/ are both sonorants while /d/ isn't.Sumelic wrote:but I'm not sure about the first because clusters like /dl/ are sometimes disfavored due to the similarity in place of /d/ and /l/
- Taurenzine
- cuneiform
- Posts: 195
- Joined: 03 Oct 2016 17:29
Re: Please Comment on what I have
You guys have brought attention to something I would like to remove, which is why I like this forum, it helps me think about this while I go through it. so I am going to remove /ml/, /nl/, /ŋl/, /ʒl/, /ʃl/, /θl/, and /ðl/. Btw I never had a /dl/ and I don't want to, I don't know how that became part of the conversationSumelic wrote:I don't really know. Probably onset /nl/ would also be disfavored for the same reason, but perhaps it would be likely to be resolved via some other kind of sound change, like syllabifying the /n/, adding a prothetic vowel or something like that.GrandPiano wrote:Wouldn't /nl/ be disfavored for the same reason? If anything, I'd think that /dl/ would be more favored than /nl/ since /n/ and /l/ are both sonorants while /d/ isn't.Sumelic wrote:but I'm not sure about the first because clusters like /dl/ are sometimes disfavored due to the similarity in place of /d/ and /l/