Ahh so sorry! My apologies as you have pointed this out once before.Frislander wrote: Please, it's definitely Frislander, after the mythical island in the North Atlantic, and definitely not to be confused with Friesland where Frisian is spoken.
Please Comment on what I have
Re: Please Comment on what I have
Re: Please Comment on what I have
I am going to take a stab at this and hope it is helpful.
Nasals:
/n m ŋ/ <n m ng>
Plosives:
/p b t d k g/ <p b t d k g>
Affricates:
/tʃ dʒ/ <ch j>
Fricatives:
/f v θ ð s z ʃ ʒ/ <f v th dh sh zjh>
Rhotics:
/r ɾ̥ ɾ r̥ ɻ̊ ɻ/ <rr hr r hrr hR R>
Other Approximants and Continuants:
/j W l / <y w l>
You have L up there twice and in IPA L is a velar lateral approximant but I am guessing you meant English l.
I am going to take my best shot at the vowels:
Monophthongs:
Front:
/i ɛ/ <ee eh> (you may have meant /e/ by eh)
Central:
/ä/ <ah>
Back:
/u ʌ/ <oo uh>
(I made ah the central open vowel as a best guess and it balances out your monophthongs super nicely)
Diphthongs:
/juːeo oʊ/ <eu eo oh>
I don't know what you mean by eo so I am going to go with eo as a diphthong a la Old English.
The phonology (which is an interpretation of course) reminds me a lot of English except for the plenitude of rhotics and the reduced vowel inventory. I suspect it would sound interesting to be sure. My next suggestion is to figure out your phonotactics, that is, the rules your syllables follow in regards to what sounds can be in the onset, nucleus and coda of our syllables and what clusters you may allow if any.
My assumption was that all the segments you laid out are phonemic, meaning the speakers would recognise the difference between them though you could also get a lot of diversity from phonological processes where sounds change in certain contexts. Most languages have this, for instance in English our p t and k sound when at the beginning of a syllable, especially word initial, are aspirated but plain elsewhere. These two sets of sounds are not phonemic in that they do not contrast against each other to English speakers. However languages may treat them as different sounds.
My point is, your language can have a lot of diversity in sounds without your speakers and your orthography explicitly needing to differentiate them. Some of your rhotics could be represented by the same character but be realised differently based on if they are word initial, word final, in a cluster or whatever.
Cheers,
Nachtuil
Nasals:
/n m ŋ/ <n m ng>
Plosives:
/p b t d k g/ <p b t d k g>
Affricates:
/tʃ dʒ/ <ch j>
Fricatives:
/f v θ ð s z ʃ ʒ/ <f v th dh sh zjh>
Rhotics:
/r ɾ̥ ɾ r̥ ɻ̊ ɻ/ <rr hr r hrr hR R>
Other Approximants and Continuants:
/j W l / <y w l>
You have L up there twice and in IPA L is a velar lateral approximant but I am guessing you meant English l.
I am going to take my best shot at the vowels:
Monophthongs:
Front:
/i ɛ/ <ee eh> (you may have meant /e/ by eh)
Central:
/ä/ <ah>
Back:
/u ʌ/ <oo uh>
(I made ah the central open vowel as a best guess and it balances out your monophthongs super nicely)
Diphthongs:
/juːeo oʊ/ <eu eo oh>
I don't know what you mean by eo so I am going to go with eo as a diphthong a la Old English.
The phonology (which is an interpretation of course) reminds me a lot of English except for the plenitude of rhotics and the reduced vowel inventory. I suspect it would sound interesting to be sure. My next suggestion is to figure out your phonotactics, that is, the rules your syllables follow in regards to what sounds can be in the onset, nucleus and coda of our syllables and what clusters you may allow if any.
My assumption was that all the segments you laid out are phonemic, meaning the speakers would recognise the difference between them though you could also get a lot of diversity from phonological processes where sounds change in certain contexts. Most languages have this, for instance in English our p t and k sound when at the beginning of a syllable, especially word initial, are aspirated but plain elsewhere. These two sets of sounds are not phonemic in that they do not contrast against each other to English speakers. However languages may treat them as different sounds.
My point is, your language can have a lot of diversity in sounds without your speakers and your orthography explicitly needing to differentiate them. Some of your rhotics could be represented by the same character but be realised differently based on if they are word initial, word final, in a cluster or whatever.
Cheers,
Nachtuil
- Taurenzine
- cuneiform
- Posts: 195
- Joined: 03 Oct 2016 17:29
Re: Please Comment on what I have
You would be absolutely right. and I can see how /d͡ʒɑnɹə/ would more widespread in some places, but I pronounce it /ʒɑnɹə/.Frislander wrote:I think /d͡ʒɑnɹə/ is possibly more widespread than you think.qwed117 wrote:genre is generally pronounced /ʒɑnɹə/. That's just a peculiarity of your speech in particular.Axiem wrote:I pronounce those two sounds differently: /plɛʒɹ̩/ and /d͡ʒɑnɹə/. Which do you mean?Taurenzine wrote: zjh: this is the 's' sound in Pleasure, or the 'g' in Genre
Anyhow, if (s)he's carting out "pleasure" as a pronunciation example then that automatically means it's /ʒ/ being referred to.
Last edited by Taurenzine on 08 Oct 2016 00:13, edited 1 time in total.
- Taurenzine
- cuneiform
- Posts: 195
- Joined: 03 Oct 2016 17:29
Re: Please Comment on what I have
This is my new Phonetic Chart (not including the vowels)
- Taurenzine
- cuneiform
- Posts: 195
- Joined: 03 Oct 2016 17:29
Re: Please Comment on what I have
Thank you! you actually really helped me out! I was trying to create a second version of my phonetic chart and this was the only place that I could find the exact symbols that I needed. I mean there of course were other places, but I had to copy and paste and this was the most efficient and helpful place. I've posted the second version of my chart already, tell me what you think of it pleaseNachtuil wrote:I am going to take a stab at this and hope it is helpful.
Nasals:
/n m ŋ/ <n m ng>
Plosives:
/p b t d k g/ <p b t d k g>
Affricates:
/tʃ dʒ/ <ch j>
Fricatives:
/f v θ ð s z ʃ ʒ/ <f v th dh sh zjh>
Rhotics:
/r ɾ̥ ɾ r̥ ɻ̊ ɻ/ <rr hr r hrr hR R>
Other Approximants and Continuants:
/j W l / <y w l>
You have L up there twice and in IPA L is a velar lateral approximant but I am guessing you meant English l.
I am going to take my best shot at the vowels:
Monophthongs:
Front:
/i ɛ/ <ee eh> (you may have meant /e/ by eh)
Central:
/ä/ <ah>
Back:
/u ʌ/ <oo uh>
(I made ah the central open vowel as a best guess and it balances out your monophthongs super nicely)
Diphthongs:
/juːeo oʊ/ <eu eo oh>
I don't know what you mean by eo so I am going to go with eo as a diphthong a la Old English.
The phonology (which is an interpretation of course) reminds me a lot of English except for the plenitude of rhotics and the reduced vowel inventory. I suspect it would sound interesting to be sure. My next suggestion is to figure out your phonotactics, that is, the rules your syllables follow in regards to what sounds can be in the onset, nucleus and coda of our syllables and what clusters you may allow if any.
My assumption was that all the segments you laid out are phonemic, meaning the speakers would recognise the difference between them though you could also get a lot of diversity from phonological processes where sounds change in certain contexts. Most languages have this, for instance in English our p t and k sound when at the beginning of a syllable, especially word initial, are aspirated but plain elsewhere. These two sets of sounds are not phonemic in that they do not contrast against each other to English speakers. However languages may treat them as different sounds.
My point is, your language can have a lot of diversity in sounds without your speakers and your orthography explicitly needing to differentiate them. Some of your rhotics could be represented by the same character but be realised differently based on if they are word initial, word final, in a cluster or whatever.
Cheers,
Nachtuil
- Taurenzine
- cuneiform
- Posts: 195
- Joined: 03 Oct 2016 17:29
Re: Please Comment on what I have
These are 7 of the 12 characters that I need for my consonants. Yes, I said 7, not 14, because each mirrored character represents the same row on the chart, however one represents voiced and one represents voiceless. I will have symbols added to each character that mark whether its a stop, a fricative, or a nasal, so that you know which sound it makes, but I still need 5 more characters and they have to be something that can be mirrored. and I haven't even started really on the vowels; the most I've done is grabbed some and put them on a chart but I really haven't spent the time to think about which vowels I should have in my language.
Re: Please Comment on what I have
Two thoughts:Taurenzine wrote:These are 7 of the 12 characters that I need for my consonants.
1. Having mirrored characters severely impairs readability and learning of a language, by its culture. Children frequently write letters backwards when they're learning, and in English, the lower-case b/d distinction can sometimes take a very long time to get straight. Though, if your culture doesn't teach children how to read/write, it's more a moot point, though it still makes things more difficult.
2. The three characters that all look like π are going to be extremely difficult to tell apart when written by anyone writing quickly—at least, in their current forms. What would happen is that the differences between them would be exaggerated to the point of not looking all that similar to each other. (As an example amongst the Latin alphabet and Arabic numerals, my understanding is that to differentiate lower-case l and the number 1, people started adding the "flag" at the top of the 1; but this made it look too much like 7, so 7 picked up the horizontal bar in the middle, to differentiate it. I wouldn't be surprised if the bar on z was to differentiate it from 2, as well)
- Taurenzine
- cuneiform
- Posts: 195
- Joined: 03 Oct 2016 17:29
Re: Please Comment on what I have
you have a good point. I'll try to make a better system that doesn't have a confusing to write and confusing to read system, with distinct letters for each row on my chart, or perhaps 2 (one for voiced and one for voiceless, like the mirrored characters).Axiem wrote:Two thoughts:Taurenzine wrote:These are 7 of the 12 characters that I need for my consonants.
1. Having mirrored characters severely impairs readability and learning of a language, by its culture. Children frequently write letters backwards when they're learning, and in English, the lower-case b/d distinction can sometimes take a very long time to get straight. Though, if your culture doesn't teach children how to read/write, it's more a moot point, though it still makes things more difficult.
2. The three characters that all look like π are going to be extremely difficult to tell apart when written by anyone writing quickly—at least, in their current forms. What would happen is that the differences between them would be exaggerated to the point of not looking all that similar to each other. (As an example amongst the Latin alphabet and Arabic numerals, my understanding is that to differentiate lower-case l and the number 1, people started adding the "flag" at the top of the 1; but this made it look too much like 7, so 7 picked up the horizontal bar in the middle, to differentiate it. I wouldn't be surprised if the bar on z was to differentiate it from 2, as well)
I'm actually really glad that you sent me this message. when creating something, there are many people who look past the bad in what they've created and are too proud of what they made. it takes another to say, 'hey, don't you think this is confusing/inefficient/odd?'. So really, thanks
Re: Please Comment on what I have
You're welcome Taurenzine! I'll take a look at the other thread. The points Axiem raise about scripts are quite good.
- Taurenzine
- cuneiform
- Posts: 195
- Joined: 03 Oct 2016 17:29
Re: Please Comment on what I have
This is the Phonetic chart that I have along with the vowels, and I'm going to soon start working on phonotactics. Note: it says all POSSIBLE diphthongs because I'm not sure which ones I want to cut out. I know i want to cut out some, because I don't want to have too many, and I'll Think that I'll figure it out as I go a bit further into Phonotactics.
Re: Please Comment on what I have
/w j/ and the rhotic consonants (except /ɾ/, which is a flap) are not fricatives, but approximants, which are vowel-like and less turbulent than fricatives. Additionally, CH (t͡ʃ) and J (d͡ʒ) are not stops, but affricates, which are a combination of a stop /t d/ and a fricative /ʃ ʒ/.
/l/ and the other ls are not nasals but approximants, specifically, lateral approximants.
It would also be efficient if you didn't divide your table into voiced and voiceless like but instead have the voiceless/voiced pairs in one square with an addendum like "when the consonants appear in pairs, the first is voiceless and the other is voiced". Makes it more cleaner and less all over the place.
Actually, you should probably take a look at a standard phoneme table.
Lastly, you sure you're going to have all those diphthongs? Some of them look like they could merge with others rather easily.
/l/ and the other ls are not nasals but approximants, specifically, lateral approximants.
It would also be efficient if you didn't divide your table into voiced and voiceless like but instead have the voiceless/voiced pairs in one square with an addendum like "when the consonants appear in pairs, the first is voiceless and the other is voiced". Makes it more cleaner and less all over the place.
Actually, you should probably take a look at a standard phoneme table.
Lastly, you sure you're going to have all those diphthongs? Some of them look like they could merge with others rather easily.
- Taurenzine
- cuneiform
- Posts: 195
- Joined: 03 Oct 2016 17:29
Re: Please Comment on what I have
Ahzoh wrote:/w j/ and the rhotic consonants (except /ɾ/, which is a flap) are not fricatives, but approximants, which are vowel-like and less turbulent than fricatives. Additionally, CH (t͡ʃ) and J (d͡ʒ) are not stops, but affricates, which are a combination of a stop /t d/ and a fricative /ʃ ʒ/.
/l/ and the other ls are not nasals but approximants, specifically, lateral approximants.
It would also be efficient if you didn't divide your table into voiced and voiceless like but instead have the voiceless/voiced pairs in one square with an addendum like "when the consonants appear in pairs, the first is voiceless and the other is voiced". Makes it more cleaner and less all over the place.
Actually, you should probably take a look at a standard phoneme table.
Lastly, you sure you're going to have all those diphthongs? Some of them look like they could merge with others rather easily.
First of all, it would be inefficient of me to add the technical terms into my chart. The only reason I have the term fricative and nasal in there is because I've been asked this question before. It's not worth having an entire column with only one sound in it. The general idea for my table is that stops stop, fricatives continue, and nasals continue in slightly different of a way. That's all. I'm not that technical and I do not want to be that technical.
Second of all, you're right about how I should put the voiceless and the voiced in one column. I'll get on that.
Third of all, if you had read my table or my post properly, these are just all POSSIBLE diphthongs. Not all the ones I will use. I am planning on choosing which ones will be cut out while working on my phonitactics.
Fourth of all, the way you just spewed everything you thought was wrong about my chart, although was helpful, gave me a mood that was not pleasent. It was like you were educated in the IPA and had experience, so just because of that you felt like you didn't need to properly educate yourself in terms of my conlang and just said everything assuming you were right, and I find that kinda rude.
Thank you for your message, if anything it did help me.
Re: Please Comment on what I have
Apologies, I was concerned it would be perceived that way but I couldn't sugarcoat it any other way.
And given your earlier tables I simply presumed you didn't know IPA and the different points and manners of articulation.
As far as "all possible diphthongs" go, when you use "all" and "possible" together with regards to language it often implies that all listed will be used.
I never really concern myself with discussions in a thread so I often only read the first two or three post and the last two or three.
Hmm, you could divide them by occlusives (nasals and stops) and continuants (fricatives and approximants).
And given your earlier tables I simply presumed you didn't know IPA and the different points and manners of articulation.
As far as "all possible diphthongs" go, when you use "all" and "possible" together with regards to language it often implies that all listed will be used.
I never really concern myself with discussions in a thread so I often only read the first two or three post and the last two or three.
Hmm, you could divide them by occlusives (nasals and stops) and continuants (fricatives and approximants).
- Frislander
- mayan
- Posts: 2088
- Joined: 14 May 2016 18:47
- Location: The North
Re: Please Comment on what I have
Or how about obstruents (stops and fricatives) vs. sonorants (nasals and approximants).Ahzoh wrote:Apologies, I was concerned it would be perceived that way but I couldn't sugarcoat it any other way.
And given your earlier tables I simply presumed you didn't know IPA and the different points and manners of articulation.
As far as "all possible diphthongs" go, when you use "all" and "possible" together with regards to language it often implies that all listed will be used.
I never really concern myself with discussions in a thread so I often only read the first two or three post and the last two or three.
Hmm, you could divide them by occlusives (nasals and stops) and continuants (fricatives and approximants).
Re: Please Comment on what I have
They want to divide the consonants by those "that stop", those "that continue", and those "that continue in a different way". But they really shouldn't put the Ls in with the nasals because they don't have nasal qualities and the nasals behave more like occlusives/stops than continuants/fricatives anyways.Frislander wrote:Or how about obstruents (stops and fricatives) vs. sonorants (nasals and approximants).
Re: Please Comment on what I have
If he is not going to use IPA categories he may also just want to use made up ones like "Stone, pebble and sand" for three categories from most stop like to most vowel like. Perhaps using "water" for actual vowels.
- Taurenzine
- cuneiform
- Posts: 195
- Joined: 03 Oct 2016 17:29
Re: Please Comment on what I have
This is my third version of my phonetic chart. I have a different name for some of the categories, such as 'continues' and 'shaped voice' which are names that I created because the words 'fricative' or 'nasal' because some of the sounds in the category didn't go into the category of 'fricative' or 'nasal' but that was the best place to put those sounds, and I didn't want to make more categories because that would just make things more complicated. So I created 2 new categories that fit what I was trying to display through their names.
- Taurenzine
- cuneiform
- Posts: 195
- Joined: 03 Oct 2016 17:29
Re: Please Comment on what I have
Here comes the Tedious Work. I decided to remove /ɭ̊/ /ɭ/ /ɻ̊/ and /ɻ/. that comes to a total of 26 consonants and 5 vowels.
Last edited by Taurenzine on 16 Oct 2016 02:52, edited 1 time in total.
- Taurenzine
- cuneiform
- Posts: 195
- Joined: 03 Oct 2016 17:29
Re: Please Comment on what I have
Thank you.Ahzoh wrote:Well that's a clever way of organizing possible consonant clusters.