Can't be bothered to quote the post where this came up, but some natlangs contrast [m] with [ŋ͡m]. And just look at all the contrasts Yeli Dnye has.
Is the point that the language can be pronounced with the mouth closed, or is the point that the language can be pronounced with no tongue?
‘mhm̋ = ‘ohaa
Re: ‘mhm̋ = ‘ohaa
Spoiler:
With the mouth closed, almost sure of it.Nortaneous wrote:Is the point that the language can be pronounced with the mouth closed, or is the point that the language can be pronounced with no tongue?
Re: ‘mhm̋ = ‘ohaa
Spoiler:
Yeah, mouth closed. I thought the difference between different "vowel" qualities was quite sublte, but a two-way distinction may actually work (for me). I could romanize it as n contra m and as ö ï ä ë contra o i a e. I'll have to give it some thought - I really could use the extra vowels.Raydred wrote:With the mouth closed, almost sure of it.Nortaneous wrote:Is the point that the language can be pronounced with the mouth closed, or is the point that the language can be pronounced with no tongue?
Native: | Fluent: | Less than fluent: , , | Beginner: , :fao:,
Creating: Jwar Nong, Mhmmz
Creating: Jwar Nong, Mhmmz
Re: ‘mhm̋ = ‘ohaa
1. mimiandeunice.comCMunk wrote:Do these cartoons have a homepage? They're hilaríous. (I assume Micamo is the author, no?)Spoiler:
Yeah, mouth closed. I thought the difference between different "vowel" qualities was quite sublte, but a two-way distinction may actually work (for me). I could romanize it as n contra m and as ö ï ä ë contra o i a e. I'll have to give it some thought - I really could use the extra vowels.Raydred wrote:With the mouth closed, almost sure of it.Nortaneous wrote:Is the point that the language can be pronounced with the mouth closed, or is the point that the language can be pronounced with no tongue?
2. Rising and falling vowels sound weird unless put on a whole sentence. But still two vowels is too little.
Re: ‘mhm̋ = ‘ohaa
You Ubykh/Margi/Arrernte me mad.Raydred wrote:But still two vowels is too little.
Re: ‘mhm̋ = ‘ohaa
Yes yes... Let me rephrase that. Two vowels is too troublesome. Is it doable? Perfectly doable! But it's troublesome...MrKrov wrote:You Ubykh/Margi/Arrernte me mad.Raydred wrote:But still two vowels is too little.
Re: ‘mhm̋ = ‘ohaa
I guess I could make a three-way (ooh, sexy) distinction if I made them far enough from eachother. Plain [m̩], palatal [ɲ͡m̩] and uvular [ɴ͡m̩]. And romanize them as m, n, ŋ and o i a e, õ ĩ ã ẽ, ǫ į ą ę.Raydred wrote:Yes yes... Let me rephrase that. Two vowels is too troublesome. Is it doable? Perfectly doable! But it's troublesome...MrKrov wrote:You Ubykh/Margi/Arrernte me mad.Raydred wrote:But still two vowels is too little.
I must say this way it seems sillier and sillier to mark tone with the vowel symbol and quality with a diacritic. Especially since the blue romanization is no longer easy to type...
Native: | Fluent: | Less than fluent: , , | Beginner: , :fao:,
Creating: Jwar Nong, Mhmmz
Creating: Jwar Nong, Mhmmz
Re: ‘mhm̋ = ‘ohaa
Here's a chart of the vowels and some awkworded monosyllabic words to see what it would look like:
Native: | Fluent: | Less than fluent: , , | Beginner: , :fao:,
Creating: Jwar Nong, Mhmmz
Creating: Jwar Nong, Mhmmz