Random phonology/phonemic inventory thread [2011–2018]

[Omzinesý]

p t t͡s k
β ɹ ɣ
m n ŋ
l
s

Phonotactics:

C(F)V(C)

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?

[Frislander]

p t t͡s k
β ɹ ɣ
m n ŋ
l
s

Phonotactics:

C(F)V(C)

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.

Some similar inventories for your enjoyment.

If you want a general Austronesian introduction, Blust's 2013 work is a very good place to start.

[DesEsseintes]

Time for more Algonquian fun!

First one: what if we mix Cheyenne and Pawnee?

/t k ʔ/ <t k '>
/s h/ <s h>
/r~n j w/ <r~n y w>

/e a o/ <e a o>

Any particular reason why you chose not to include /p/ and/or a postalveolar segment?

My take on a Cheyenne-Pawnee baby:

/p t k ʔ/
/t͡s~t͡ʃ/
/s h/
/v~m r~n/

/a e o/
Oh yes, of course it has to be /a e o/

[Frislander]

Time for more Algonquian fun!

First one: what if we mix Cheyenne and Pawnee?

/t k ʔ/ <t k '>
/s h/ <s h>
/r~n j w/ <r~n y w>

/e a o/ <e a o>

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.

[Shemtov]

/p pʰ b bʱ t tʰ d dʱ k kʰ g gʱ kʷ kʷʰ gʷ gʷʱ/
/s h/
/r/
/l i̯ u̯/
/i i: u u: ɛ ɔ a a:/
/r̩ l̩ m̩ n̩/
/ai ɛi ɔi/

[jimydog000]

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.

My answer to that is pretty much every single Aboriginal Australian language.

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.

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.

Thanks to both of you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iwaidjan_languages

[LinguoFranco]

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?

[Man in Space]

Something ripped off from inspired by Lardil.

/m n̪ n ɲ ŋ/ m ṉ n ñ ng (geminate /ŋː/ is written ngg)
/p t̪ t tʲ k ʔ/ p d t j k ʔ
/s̪ s ʃ h/ z s š h
/w l̪ l j/ w ł l y

/u o ɔ a ə ɛ e i/ u o ɔ a ə ɛ e i

(C)V(C)

Some sort of assimilation will occur with the coronals, not sure exactly how it's going to work yet.

I'm thinking about collapsing the dental-alveolar-palatal distinction in the daughter languages (in the obstruents at least).

Some possible sound changes (not all for the same language!) that I've spitballed:

Spoiler:

t̪ t tʲ → s̪ s ʃ / _{e,i}
ɔ ɛ → o e
ə → i

ʃ → x
tʲ → ʃ

VN → Ṽ / _%
w → m / _%
mC → NC
m → ŋ / _#

p → w / _%

V → Ø / _V

V → Ø / V_

V → ː / V_

V{p,h} → Vː / _%

Vh → Ṽː
VF → Vː

NS → Sː

NF → Nː

{ɔ,ɛ} → a / _(C)(C){a,ə}

u i → w j / _V

u i → w j / V_

{p,k} → Ø / _%
p k → w j / _%

{l̪,l} → j / _%

{l̪,l} → w / _%

t̪ > t : t̪ : t : t̪ : t : t̪ : t : t̪ : t : t̪
t > t : t̪ : t : t : tʲ : t : t : t : t : t
tʲ > tʲ : t : tʃ : s : tʲ : t : t : tʲ : ts : ʃ

[LinguoFranco]

How unusual is it for a natlang to have /l/ but not /r/?

[Shemtov]

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

[Frislander]

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).

[Creyeditor]

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/.

[All4Ɇn]

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?

[Frislander]

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?

Similar contexts to when American English does the same thing, I'd've thought.

[Creyeditor]

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.

[DesEsseintes]

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/.

[Frislander]

This on I call Absaalotl

/b t t͡ɬ t͡ʃ k ʔ/
/s x/
/w~m l~n/

/i iː eː a aː o oː ea̯ oa̯/

/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.

[LinguoFranco]

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.

Thoughts?

[DesEsseintes]

This on I call Absaalotl

/b t t͡ɬ t͡ʃ k ʔ/
/s x/
/w~m l~n/

/i iː eː a aː o oː ea̯ oa̯/

/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.

Absolutely lovely.

[Man in Space]

This on I call Absaalotl

/b t t͡ɬ t͡ʃ k ʔ/
/s x/
/w~m l~n/

/i iː eː a aː o oː ea̯ oa̯/

/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.

Might I recommend /w/ [m] before /t͡ɬ/ as well?