F stands for the second line, voiced fricatives and
So /pl/ is impossible onset but /pɣ/ is not.
Fairly Oceanic, I'll say!
I know very little of Oceanic languages.
What reminds you of them in that inventory?
For me it's several things: the single stop series; the voiced fricative series; the single sibilant; the liquid but no approximant; the full nasal series. The phonotactics are a bit weird, though.
Any particular reason why you chose not to include /p/ and/or a postalveolar segment?
Well I was wanting to do something radical with the diachronics like this, and the sound changes as-is didn't really leave that much room for it. I call it a Cheyenne-Pawnee mix because those are the two languages which come closest.
wintiver wrote:This is not a phonology but a question about rhotics within a phonology.
Most of the time I see a language has a single rhotic whether it is a trill, tap, lateral flap, or approximant. Where languages have more than one rhotic they are typically of the same mode of articulation. But I just wanted opinions on the naturalism and aesthetic of having both a trill and an approximant /r/ and /ɹ/ respectively.
I guess I had never paid attention to that specific dimension of Aboriginal phonetics. I feel less hacky for wanting to use it in my language.
jimydog000 wrote:Yeah, some even have [ɻ] as the only retroflex. If you are stubbornly after [ɹ] Such a language would probably distinguish by central and lateral consonants, Japanese, famously does not.
And yeah, I did want there to be a distinction between lateral and central consonants.
What would you think of an auxlang with a four vowel system?
From what I've studied, the three vowel system would severely restrict the number of syllables and fall into allophony and diphthongization. The five vowel system seems better for auxlangs, but would a distinction really be necessary for back vowels like /u/ and /o/, with one back vowel phoneme with free variance in its pronunciation as long as it is pronounced as back rounded vowel?
CC = Common Caber
CK = Classical Khaya
CT = Classical Ĝare n Tim Ar
Kg = Kgáweq'
PB = Proto-Beheic
PO = Proto-O
PTa = Proto-Taltic
STK = Sisỏk Tlar Kyanà
Tm = Təmattwəspwaypksma
LinguoFranco wrote:How unusual is it for a natlang to have /l/ but not /r/?
Not at all! Mandarin does, as do the other Chinese 'lects- I believe it goes back to Middle Chinese. Hawaiian also has /l/ but no rhotic- I think that's actually very common in Polynesia
Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write.
-JRR Tolkien
LinguoFranco wrote:How unusual is it for a natlang to have /l/ but not /r/?
Not at all! Mandarin does, as do the other Chinese 'lects- I believe it goes back to Middle Chinese. Hawaiian also has /l/ but no rhotic- I think that's actually very common in Polynesia
It's more common than that. In North america, if a language has any liquids at all it's a good deal more likely that it'll have /l/ than that it'll have both /l/ and /r/ or /r/ but no /l/. Indeed the percentage of languages which have only /l/ and not only /r/ has actually gone up since the arrival of the colonists, since in both Algonquian and Siouan we have examples where early records show /r/ but the modern language shifted that to /l/ under the influence from English or language-internal factors.
New Guinea also shows a good number of languages with /l/ but no /r/ (having only 1 liquid is often quoted as a common feature of New Guinea as a whole).
Just one thing. I think having [l] and absolutely no [r] might be less common than /l/ without /r/. Because the languages often have allophony involving [r].
A lot (maybe many or only some) of the New Guinea (the island, not the state) languages have [r] as an allophone of /t/.
Creyeditor "Thoughts are free." Produce, Analyze, Manipulate 12344 Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
Creyeditor wrote:A lot (maybe many or only some) of the New Guinea (the island, not the state) languages have [r] as an allophone of /t/.
Huh I've never heard of this. When does it occur?
It may very well be a flap/tap. Also it can also be an allophone of /d/. I think I read it in here, but I do not remember the specific conditions and languages.
Creyeditor "Thoughts are free." Produce, Analyze, Manipulate 12344 Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
Creyeditor wrote:A lot (maybe many or only some) of the New Guinea (the island, not the state) languages have [r] as an allophone of /t/.
Huh I've never heard of this. When does it occur?
It may very well be a flap/tap. Also it can also be an allophone of /d/. I think I read it in here, but I do not remember the specific conditions and languages.
Check out Abau for a language with no phonemic /t/ but with a stop allophone of /r/.
/w/ is realised as [m] word-initially and finally and [w] elsewhere. /l/ is realised as [n] word-initially, before /t͡ɬ/ and word-finally, and [l] elsewhere.
Syllable structure is CV(C), where any consonant may appear initially or finally.
I'm gonna post the phonemic inventory of my main project along with a possible romanization and maybe even a few words so you can get what the language sounds like and how I can improve it.
/m n ɲ ŋ/ <m n ny ng>
/p b t k g ʔ/ <p b t k g h/'>
/ɸ β x ɕ ʑ/ <f v x s z>
/l ɾ j/ <l r y>
/tɕ dʑ/ <ts tz>
Some sample words:
tovo- first person singular
yeko- second person singular
pava- third person singular
lono- fourth person singular
pazo- tree
kezo- sword
muxa- animal
vasa- plant
poyek- to travel
yano- to think
kino- to travel
xonoko- dog
xuro- wolf
tala/tla- land, earth
nyeva- sky
Some sound changes I am considering are replacing /x/ with /h./ Do you like [muxa] or [muha] better, soundwise? What about /s/ vs /ɕ/ and /z/ vs /ʑ/? I don't really have a preference over /v/ or /w/.
I'm also thinking about getting rid of bilabial plosives, mainly because there are already bilabial fricatives, and I don't think there is such as sharp of a distinction between /p/ and /ɸ/, so [paʑo] would become [maʑo]. I know many languages have both /p/ and /ɸ/, but I don't see the distinction as really necessary.
/w/ is realised as [m] word-initially and finally and [w] elsewhere. /l/ is realised as [n] word-initially, before /t͡ɬ/ and word-finally, and [l] elsewhere.
Syllable structure is CV(C), where any consonant may appear initially or finally.
/w/ is realised as [m] word-initially and finally and [w] elsewhere. /l/ is realised as [n] word-initially, before /t͡ɬ/ and word-finally, and [l] elsewhere.
Syllable structure is CV(C), where any consonant may appear initially or finally.
Looks like a delightful mix of Amazonian and Mesoamerican.
CC = Common Caber
CK = Classical Khaya
CT = Classical Ĝare n Tim Ar
Kg = Kgáweq'
PB = Proto-Beheic
PO = Proto-O
PTa = Proto-Taltic
STK = Sisỏk Tlar Kyanà
Tm = Təmattwəspwaypksma