Vlürch wrote:best conalng evar 10/10 no doubt!!!1!11
Well, I do think it's well on its way to satisfying the goal you stated here!
Vlürch wrote: .... It's one of my big dreams to make the most ridiculous conlang ever to have been made and for it to somehow become the first language of some village in the middle of nowhere and see how it would evolve. ....
Oh, it wouldn't take long to evolve, at all. People, even in some hick town, within only a minute, will be like, "ER, God, please, ER, ER, ER...EEEEER!!!"
/b t d k g q/ <b t d k g q>
/bʲ c ɟ kʲ gʲ kʷ gʷ/ <by ty dy ky gy kw gw>
/m mʲ n ɲ ŋ/ <m my n ny ng>
/f v θ ð s z ʃ x h/ <f v th dh s z sh x h>
/ts tʃ/ <ts tsh>
/r̥ r r̥ʲ rʲ ɬ l y/ <rh r rhy ry lh l y>
/a ɛ e i y u ɔ o/ <a e é i y u o ó>
I am always a bit uncreative when it comes to the vowels haha. I don't know yet whether I am going to work with this one.
DV82LECM wrote:Oh, it wouldn't take long to evolve, at all. People, even in some hick town, within only a minute, will be like, "ER, God, please, ER, ER, ER...EEEEER!!!"
OTOH the first part of that goal -- viz. "the most ridiculous conlang ever to have been made" -- seems, if not within reach, then at least within sight, from this sketch so far!
I think it might be a contender!
[hr][/hr]
Illuminatus wrote:/a ɛ e i y u ɔ o/ <a e é i y u o ó>
I am always a bit uncreative when it comes to the vowels haha. I don't know yet whether I am going to work with this one.
(1) What do you mean?
and
(2) Why these particular eight vowels?
Is this indicative of a misanthropic outlook on life?
Either that, or an observation of what people do for about four thirds of their lives.
DV82LECM wrote:Oh, it wouldn't take long to evolve, at all. People, even in some hick town, within only a minute, will be like, "ER, God, please, ER, ER, ER...EEEEER!!!"
eldin raigmore wrote:
DV82LECM wrote:Oh, it wouldn't take long to evolve, at all. People, even in some hick town, within only a minute, will be like, "ER, God, please, ER, ER, ER...EEEEER!!!"
OTOH the first part of that goal -- viz. "the most ridiculous conlang ever to have been made" -- seems, if not within reach, then at least within sight, from this sketch so far!
I think it might be a contender!
Well, I'm probably not going to continue working on it since I never get anywhere with any conlangs.
/m n/ <m n>
/b d k g/ <b d k g>
/ʃ ʒ/ <x j>
/θ ð j ɣ/ <s z i h>
/ɺ/ <r>
Illuminatus wrote:/a ɛ e i y u ɔ o/ <a e é i y u o ó>
I am always a bit uncreative when it comes to the vowels haha. I don't know yet whether I am going to work with this one.
(1) What do you mean?
and
(2) Why these particular eight vowels?
(1+2) I don't know, I usually have a clear vision of what consonants I want to use, but when it comes to the vowels I just choose some that I like and I am not really motivated to play around with different variants haha.
However, here is another (until now solely consonantic) inventory that I am actually going to use (probably):
/b t d k/ <b t d k>
/ɸ θ s z ʃ y h/ <f ð s z c y h>
/m n ŋ/ <m n ṅ>
/r̥ r ɬ l w/ <ṙ r ł l w>
/ts tʃ tɬ/ <ts tc tl>
I like the idea that only in the alveolar place of articulation there is a phonemic distinction between voiced and voiceless consonants. Currently working on the vowels, hoping that I will be content this time.
Illuminatus wrote:(1+2) I don't know, I usually have a clear vision of what consonants I want to use, but when it comes to the vowels I just choose some that I like and I am not really motivated to play around with different variants haha.
Maybe you could list them in order by vowel-height (close, open, mid, close-mid, open-mid, near-close, near-open)?
And/or by frontness/backness? (front, back, central, near-front, near-back)?
And/or by roundedness vs unroundedness?
Right now it looks like you have the following:
Close (high) vowels: / i y u /
Close-mid vowels: / e o /
Open-mid vowels: / ɛ ɔ /
Open vowel: / a /
Front vowels: / i y e ɛ a /
Back vowels: / u o ɔ /
Rounded vowels: / y u o ɔ /
Unrounded vowels: / i e ɛ a /
Your only interior (i.e. non-peripheral) vowel is / y /, a front rounded vowel (the close one).
Your seven peripheral vowels include four front unrounded ones / i e ɛ a / and three back rounded ones / u o ɔ /.
You only have one open (low) vowel; / a /.
I don't think there's anything wrong with any of that.
But you might ask yourself:
If you have only one low or near-open vowel, why* isn't it central instead of front?
Why* don't you have any central vowels further up (i.e. closer) than that?
*("Just because" is an acceptable answer for you to give anyone else, but you needn't accept it from yourself!)
If you have only one open vowel, and it's front, there's plenty of room to also have an open back vowel; would you like one?
If all of your vowels (closer or higher than the open or low ones) are either front or back and none of them are central, then mightn't you as well have back unrounded vowels as front rounded ones?
In particular you could have / y / and / ɯ / . Or for greater contrast with / i / you could have / Y / (the near-close near-front rounded vowel) instead of / y /; and for greater contrast with / u / have a near-close near-back unrounded vowel** instead of / ɯ /.
** / ɯ̽ or ɯ̞̈ or ω or ʊ̜ / . See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-clos ... nded_vowel
[hr][/hr]
As I understand it, if I recall correctly, at each height (closeness/openness), a vowel-inventory is probably going to have at least as many front vowels as back vowels, and at least as many back vowels as central vowels. (Apparently there could some degree of approximation here.) . (But maybe 5 front vowels, 3 back vowels, and 0 central vowels, is taking that to an extreme you don't want to go to; you might like 4 fronts, 3 backs, and 2 centrals (9 vowels total) better; or 3 fronts, 2 backs, and 1 central (six vowels total). Or 5/3/1 or 4/2/0. But why* not 3/3/2 ?)
Also, in any "column" (vowels of the same frontness/backness and roundedness/unroundedness) of interior (not front unrounded, not back rounded, and not open/low) vowels, if there are two or more interior vowels in that column, one of them has to be close/high. You have just one interior vowel, and it's close.
Also, the closer (higher up) a row (vowels of the same closeness/openness or height) is, the more vowels it's likely to have in it; or, to put it another way, the more vowels a row has in it, the higher up it's likely to be. You have three close vowels, two close-mid vowels, two open-mid vowels, and one open vowel; so your system satisfies this, too.
[hr][/hr]
Spoiler:
My personal preference is to have no two vowel-phonemes in my inventory differ by just one degree in just one feature.
So I don't like the / i y / pair; they're the same closeness and the same frontness, and differ only in roundedness.
The / i I / pair I'd like better; / i / is close and front, while / I / is near-close and near-front. They differ by just one degree in two features instead of just one.
/ i Y / is even better IMO!
I like to have a close vowel and an open vowel and a front vowel and a back vowel and a rounded vowel and an unrounded vowel. You have that.
I also like to have a central vowel and either a mid vowel or an open-mid vowel or a close-mid vowel.
You don't have a central vowel, but you do have open-mid vowels and close-mid vowels.
A Cartesian eight-vowel system might have close front unrounded, close front rounded, close back unrounded, close back rounded, open front unrounded, open front rounded, open back unrounded, and open back rounded vowels; six peripheral and two internal (close front rounded and close back unrounded).
IMO such a system would be likelier to move the close front rounded to near-close near-front rounded, and the close back unrounded to near-close near-back unrounded, to improve the contrast.
It might also move the open front rounded to near-open near-front rounded; and/or the open back unrounded to near-open near-back unrounded.
Or it might merge those two into a near-open central vowel of unspecified roundedness.
-----------------
Well,, looks like I've rambled a bit. Sorry.
Last edited by eldin raigmore on 01 Jul 2017 06:38, edited 1 time in total.
eldin raigmore wrote:
[...]
Well,, looks like I've rambled a bit. Sorry.
You don't have to apologise, thank you very much for that detailed answer! I think I learnt something new about vowels and phonemic inventories and I am going to work a bit more on my inventories (especially the vowels) in the next few day. Going to keep you up-to-date.
Sry, I wish I could respond to you a bit more detailed, but right now I don't have much time.
Inspired by Des' new pastiche-lang Japfoot, this is my own Blackfoot inspired phonology, what I like to call "a sh*t-ton of sibilants".
/p t k/
/s (ʃ) x/
/m n/
/w j/
/i a o/ plus a two-way tone distinction. /i/ is by far the most common vowel.
/p t k s m n/ may be geminated intervocalically.
The stops are realised as sibilant affricates and /x/ is realised as [ʃ] before /i/ (i.e. /p t k x/ > [ps ts ks ʃ]/_i).
Syllable structure is CV(V)(C), where any combination of vowels is permissable in the nucleus and any single consonant bar the glides may appear in the coda. Contour tones are permitted. Syllabic /s m n/ are also permitted, again with a length distinction, and where /m n/ may carry tone in the same way as the vowels.
A challenge I came up with for myself: Design a phonology where no two consonants (or vowels!) share the same PoA and MoA. Klingon practically already does this, so my goal was to make it at least remotely naturalistic.
Syllabic post-palatal voiced fricative: /ʝ̟̩/ (or, buzzed/apical close central unrounded vowel: /ʅ/)
Mid central vowel: /ə/
Nasal low central vowel: /ã/
When adjacent to /ã/, /ɓ w ɾ ʀ/ become [m ŋʷ n ŋ], respectively. The pairs /ɓ/ /w/, /tθ/ /ɾ/, and /k/ /ʀ/ alternate in various morphonological processes.
Unaspirated Stops: p pʷ t̪ t͡s ʈ c k kʷ <p p̆ t c ṭ ķ k k̯>
Voiced Stops: b bʷ d̪ d͡z ɖ ɟ g gʷ <b b̯ d z ḍ ģ g ğ>
Nasals: m mʷ n̪ ɳ ɲ ŋ ŋʷ <m m̯ n ṇ ņ ŋ ŋ̆>
Fricatives:f fʷ s x xʷ <f f̯ s h h̯>
Approximants: l̥~ɬ l ɭ ʎ j ɰ w <hl l ḷ ļ y w w̯>
Trills: r̥ r <hr r>
Notes:
There are some geminate consonants too which are phonemically distinct as well. The voiceless stops (both aspirated and non aspirated can form geminates. Voiced stops however do not (in lieu of voiced geminate stops there exists a homorganic nasal precursor to the voiced stop: i.e. bb > mb, dd > nd, etc). Besides the stops, all the other modes of articulation can form geminates however in some cases this does mess with the phonetic realization
Some dialects have /v vʷ ɣ ɣʷ/ and in those dialects /ɰ/ is absent
/l̥ l r̥ r/ can be treated as the nuclei of syllables (in other words, they are syllabic, though the voicing distinction usually is lost and the phonetic realization of voicing is merely environmental)
Vowels
Short Vowels: i e a o u <i e a o u>
Long Vowels: iː eː aː oː uː <í é á ó ú>
Short Diphthongs: ai̯ au̯ eu̯ oi̯ <ai au eu oi>
Long Diphthongs: aːi̯ aːu̯ eːu̯ oːi̯ <ái áu éu ói>
Notes:
In North-Central varieties of Wéši there is also /ɨ̹/ - a half-rounded close central vowel, ostensibly half-way between /i/ and /u/. I am debating on making this part of the rest of the vowel system, but I am unsure.
I am also debating on a rare three way length contrast. I am conflicted on this because half the time it seems sort of lovely and the other half it seems silly. To rationalize it, I was thinking of manifesting the short/long/overlong distinction only in root words... but yeah, not sure.
Pardon the slew of diacritics, I was doing my damndest to prevent trigraphs while also maintaining consistency of diacritical forms.
Breves indicate labialization
Underdots indicate retroflexion
Cedillas indicate palatal place of articulation
(This is not fully set in stone, I could possibly mess with the orthographic representation of /dz/ or /j/. Making either of them <j>. If I do this, it would free up <y> so I could use that on /ɨ̹/ if I chose to use that for the language.
Sorry for the stream of consciousness, I am making this as I go and it helps to write it all out.
I was thinking about a conlang with a full blown contrast between released an unreleased stops, also in consonant clusters, so /at̚k̚a/ /at̚kʰa/ /atʰk̚a/ /atʰkʰa/ would all contrast on the surface. Not sure how prevocalic unreleased stops would be realized. I was thinking either of a slightly negative VOT or glottlization. Maybe in free variation?
Creyeditor "Thoughts are free." Produce, Analyze, Manipulate 12344 Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
Creyeditor wrote:I was thinking about a conlang with a full blown contrast between released and unreleased stops, also in consonant clusters, so /at̚k̚a/ /at̚kʰa/ /atʰk̚a/ /atʰkʰa/ would all contrast on the surface. Not sure how prevocalic unreleased stops would be realized. I was thinking either of a slightly negative VOT or glottlization. Maybe in free variation?
My Spanish-L1 friends and teachers taught me to hear, and tried very hard to teach me how to say, the difference between an aspirated and an unaspirated unvoiced prevocalic stop.
I don't think "unaspirated" implies "unreleased". Contrapositively I don't think "released" implies "(post-)aspirated".
How all this works word-finally or in consonant clusters, I don't know.
I know how to look up languages that differentiate between {pre- and post- and un-} x {-aspirated and -affricated and -nasalized} stops, and released vs unreleased stops, and so on; but I have no idea how to look up languages that have various phonotactics involving those sounds.
Creyeditor wrote:I was thinking about a conlang with a full blown contrast between released an unreleased stops, also in consonant clusters, so /at̚k̚a/ /at̚kʰa/ /atʰk̚a/ /atʰkʰa/ would all contrast on the surface. Not sure how prevocalic unreleased stops would be realized. I was thinking either of a slightly negative VOT or glottlization. Maybe in free variation?
Have you checked out the stops in Javanese? I don't know that language's phonotactics or allophony or sandhi, but it may be inspirational for all I know. It does seem to have four pairs of voiceless stop phonemes distinguished only by one member being unaspirated and with no special release while the other is aspirated with a breathy or fricative release.
Edit: BTW "negative VOT"? How does voice-onset-time go negative? Is that a common phrase I just don't happen to have heard before?
![[:)]](./images/smilies/icon_smile2.png ":)"){kind=icon}
Is this indicative of a misanthropic outlook on life?
![[B)]](./images/smilies/icon_cool2.png "cool"){kind=icon}
![[:D]](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin2.png ":D"){kind=icon}
3 
4 
4 
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas![[<3]](./images/smilies/heartic.png "<3"){kind=small}
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics ![[:3]](./images/smilies/icon_3.png ":3"){kind=icon}
