Muddling through another Conlang

[sirgryfang]

Just asking for opinions regarding this phonolgy... if none then it's cool. I'm not sure I'm happy with it, nor if I'm doing it right so...

Spoiler:

Code: Select all

+--------------------+
| Consonant Phonemes |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
|                    Bilabial Labiodental Dental Alveolar PostAlveolar Vellar|
|              Nasal     m                           n                       |
|            Plosive     p                           t                    k  |
|          Fricative               f         T       s          S            |
|        Approximant                                 r\                      |
|        Flap or tap                                 4                       |
|Lateral Approximant                                 l                       |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------+
| Vowels |
+--------+------------------------------+
|          Front Near-front Central Back|
|    Close   i                        u |
|Close-mid      e                     o |
| Open-mid         E           3        |
|Near-open            {                 |
|     Open               a              |
+---------------------------------------+
+-------+
| Tones |
+-------+---------+
|     High Mid Low|
|Tone  _H   _M  _L|
+-----------------+
+------------+
| Stress (') |
+------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Stress always goes on the Vowel with the most respect in the following order:      |
|              i,      u,      a,      e,      3,      E,      {,      o             |
| If the vowel is repeated in a word, stress is given to the first with most respect |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------+
| Phonotactics |
+--------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| There are two different syllable constructions. In this the : is for the lengthening of a vowel           |
|        1.    (Main)      CV(:)C     -     1+    syllable      -     ex.    rhahp         /r\{p/           |
|        2.    (Joined)    CV(:)      -     2+    Syllables     -     ex.    rhahppahth    /r\{.p{T/        |
| The Joined construction can only be used if there is a Main or Joined syllable following it.              |
| Main syllables can have other Main or Joined syllables follow it, but only a Main syllable can end a word |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

I also have this transliteration so far... Any improvements would be helpful (and correcting my terminological inaccuracies)

Spoiler:

Code: Select all

+----------+-----+
| Translit | CXS |
+----------+-----+
|    f     |  f  |
|    k     |  k  |
|    p     |  p  |
|    rh    |  r\ |
|    l     |  l  |
|    r     |  4  |
|    m     |  m  |
|    n     |  n  |
|    s     |  s  |
|    sh    |  S  |
|    t     |  t  |
|    th    |  T  |
| ì  i  í  |  i  |
| ù  u  ú  |  u  |
| à  a  á  |  a  |
| è  e  é  |  e  |
| ùh uh úh |  3  |
| èh eh éh |  E  |
| àh ah áh |  {  |
| ò  o  ó  |  o  |
+----------+-----+
+------------+
|Tone Markers|
+------------+--------------+----+
| ì, ù, à, è, ùh, èh, àh, ò | _L |
| i, u, a, e, uh, eh, ah, o | _M |
| í, ú, á, é, úh, éh, áh, ó | _H |
+---------------------------+----+

[Micamo]

Consonants are pretty standard, with the exception of /T/. Vowels are a bit too asymmetric I think. Moar back vowels or less front vowels are needed. The tone system... feels unnecessary.

[cybrxkhan]

I agree with Micamo on the consonants; if you want to spice things up a bit but still keep the structure, my suggestion is to maybe add in some kinds of secondary articulation for contrasts for at least the stops, like aspirated and unaspirated or velarized or something; that way you'll have a few more consonants without messing up the basic structure of your consonant inventory, I guess.

[Ceresz]

Consonants are pretty standard, with the exception of /T/. Vowels are a bit too asymmetric I think. Moar back vowels or less front vowels are needed. The tone system... feels unnecessary.

I agree on maybe adding more back-vowels, but the amount of front-vowels is fine. Trust me.

Other than that it looks fine. I hate [r\], but it's your lang :-).

[Micamo]

Germanic-esque vowel systems are not the norm.

[Ceresz]

Maybe not but it's still fine. Maybe remove either /E/ or /{/ but having both is still possible (you could make one of them an allophone of the other).

[Micamo]

Swedish? ;p

[Ceresz]

...yes. Knowing Swedish is the only reason I can tell you that having that many front vowels is fine, as well as having [{] as an allophone of /E/ :P.

[sirgryfang]

... Moar back vowels or less front ...

I agree on maybe adding more back-vowels, but the amount of front-vowels is fine. Trust me...

I'll add more back, but I work with what I understand though, and most of the back confuses me, I guess I need to spend more time listening.

...you'll have a few more consonants...

I actually had more consonants (still mostly all standard), but I removed several because I wanted to make it more vowel heavy. I could add (some of) them back in (and maybe include others).

...Other than that it looks fine. I hate [r\], but it's your lang :-).

Yeah, I work with what I know and I certainly know [r\], one of the consonants that I took out was [r] too. I might add it back, but I'm still keeping [r\] because I know it.

...The tone system... feels unnecessary.

I guess... I mean it wasn't in my first thought of this, but I added it in afterward. I use it to determine one of the genders (specifically the M/F gender) in verbs, nouns, adjectives, ... Honestly I'm not a tonal person by nature so I wouldn't lose any sleep over axing it.

...Thanks all...

[Ceresz]

Just having /4/ and /r\/ is fine. Adding /r/ feels unnecessary.

You could add /A/, I'm sure you're familiar with that. And maybe /O/.

[eldin raigmore]

It's unusual for a natlang to have no rhotics at all; it's also unusual for a natlang to have more than one rhotic.

It's unusual for a natlang to have no lateral liquids at all; it's also unusual for a natlang to have more than one lateral liquid.

Most natlangs have at least two liquids. Most don't have more than two.

If you decide to go with two or more rhotics, knowing that it's unusual for natlangs, then, more power to you. Your 'lang has two rhotics and a lateral liquid, for a total of three liquids. I think that's reasonable.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Your vowel distribution is very unnatural and unrealistic IMO.
An eight-vowel system should probably have some subset of
/ i e E 1 @ a\ u o O /
or something near to some subset of those nine vowels.

It looks to me like you have five front vowels and only two back vowels. That's an unusually big difference. Granted, there are ordinarily at least as many front vowels as back vowels, and at least as many back vowels as central vowels; but the difference in the number of vowel-phonemes in one "column" from another is usually more like 0 or 1 than like 3.

To load up on front vowels while skimping on back and central vowels is an un-economic use of the vowel-space; it's probably not stable over time. That's why it's unnaturalistic and unrealistic.

If you want to do it anyway, well, good luck.

You have seven peripheral (front unrounded, or open (low), or back rounded) vowels.

You only have one interior (non-peripheral) vowel; / 3 /, an open-mid tense central unrounded vowel.

That's quite unusual. Normally, any column of interior vowels that contains at least two vowels, contains a close (high) vowel. Your central unrounded vowels contain only one interior vowel, / 3 /, so they don't really have to contain / 1 / to satisfy that "universal"; but I think a language with eight vowel-qualities in its vowel-phoneme inventory is unlikely to have only / 3 / as its only interior vowel and its only central vowel.

Your only open (low) vowel is front unrounded / a /. I think it's more common to have / a\ / (open central unrounded) as the only open vowel, if you only have one; and to have / Q / (open back rounded) as well as / a / if you have / a / but not / a\ /.

Also, it's unusual to have all three of / E { a /. Those are all front unrounded and they differ minimally in openness / E a a\ / or / E a Q / is likelier, IMO.

Your only back vowels are / u o /; one is close, the other close-mid. They should spread out more.

/ i e E a u o O Q / might be a more reasonable vowel-inventory, though IMO it still leaves the central vowels unexploited.

There should be at least as many close vowels as open vowels; indeed, there should be at least as many close vowels as vowels at any other height.

You might want / i E\ a 1 @ a\ u o\ Q / or some subset of it for a more-reasonable vowel-inventory.

(None of the inventories I'm proposing are ideally naturalistic and realistic IMO; but I think they come closer than your original.)

______________________________________________________________________________

Your vowel-quality inventory (ignoring phonemic length and phonemic nasalization) is pretty much determined by your answer to two questions;
(1) How many vowel-qualities do you have?
(2) How many of them are "peripheral" (front unrounded, back rounded, and/or open (low))?

If your answers are 5;5 then your vowel-inventory is almost certain to be close to
/ i E a\ O u /

You might also want to ask;
(3) how many different heights (closenesses vs opennesses) do you want to have?
(4) how many different columns (frontnesses vs backnesses) do you want to have?

(5) Do you want any unrounded vowels that aren't front or open (that is, any interior unrounded vowels)?
(6) Do you want any rounded vowels that aren't back or open (that is, any interior rounded vowels)?

Suppose you want three columns; front unrounded, central, and back rounded. Then you need at least as many front unrounded vowels as back rounded vowels, and at least as many back rounded vowels as central vowels.

However many "rows" (heights, or closenesses) of vowels you want, you probably want at least "close" and "open". There are usually at least two close vowels; one front unrounded / i / and one back rounded / u /. And there are ordinarily at least as many close vowels as open vowels. If you want two open vowels you should make them as far apart as possible; say, / a / and / Q /. Otherwise, if you want only one open vowel, it should probably be central; / a\ /.

If you have more than one central interior vowel, one of them should be close (high).

[Vosel]

Code: Select all

+--------+------------------------------+
|          Front Near-front Central Back|
|    Close   i                        u |
|Close-mid      e                     o |
| Open-mid         E           3        |
|Near-open            {                 |
|     Open               a              |
+---------------------------------------+

As others said, this is unrealistic, vowels must be equally spaced. You should try something like

Code: Select all

+--------+------------------------------+
|          Front Near-front Central Back|
|    Close   i      y                u |
|Close-mid      e                       |
| Open-mid              œ      ə        |
|Near-open            ɛ               ɔ |
|     Open                   a         |
+---------------------------------------+

[sirgryfang]

.../ i e E a u o O Q / might be a more reasonable vowel-inventory, though IMO it still leaves the central vowels unexploited...You might want / i E\ a 1 @ a\ u o\ Q / or some subset of it for a more-reasonable vowel-inventory...

/i e E a u o O Q/ or / i E\ a 1 @ a\ u o\ Q / seem reasonable... but I can hear far more differences between /a { E/ than /o O Q/ the latter just blurs together in my head and I lose any distinctiveness. I wanted it to be a little more vowel heavy, but should I forgoe that for a six vowel system of /i } o A { e/? Then there would be 3 front (/i e {/) 2 back (/o A/) and one central (/}/)

And are my vowels jacked up because I'm an Ohioian [?3.haI:.jI:\n]?

[eldin raigmore]

/i e E a u o O Q/ or / i E\ a 1 @ a\ u o\ Q / seem reasonable

Good...

but I can hear far more differences between /a { E/ than /o O Q/ the latter just blurs together in my head and I lose any distinctiveness.

Odds are you are pronouncing your / a / as [ a\ ] (open central unrounded) instead of as [ a ] (open front unrounded).
(NOTE: phonemes are written between solidi; phones are written between square brackets.)
Certainly there's an easily-heard difference between [ a\ ] and [ { ].
But part of that is that they aren't the same backness; [ { ] is front and [ a\ ] is central.

OTOH [ { ] (near-open front unrounded) is not so different from [ a ] (open front unrounded) and [ E ] (open-mid front unrounded). [ { ] and [ a ] are equally front, and only minimally different in height; [ a ] is open while [ { ] is near-open.

The corresponding central vowels would be [ 6 ] (near-open central (unrounded?)) and [ a\ ] (open central unrounded) and [ 3 ] (open-mid central unrounded).
[ 6 ] is somewhat less distinct from [ a\ ] and [ 3 ] than [ { ] is from [ a ] and [ E ].

The back and near-back triplet that might correspond might be [ A\ ] (near-open near-back (rounded?)) and [ Q ] (open back rounded) and [ O ] (open-mid back rounded).
By height alone, ignoring backness (and roundedness), [ A\ ] should be less distinct from [ Q ] and [ O ] than [ 6 ] is from [ a\ ] and [ E ].
In fact, possibly, there aren't any natlangs having an open back or near-back vowel, and a near-open back or near-back vowel, and an open-mid back or near-back vowel, which don't differ in backness nor roundedness, but rather only in height.
I think maybe in natlangs that have such a set of three vowel-phones -- that is, three phonemically distinct back or near-back vowels of which one is open, one is near-open, and one is open-mid -- one of them differs at least minimally from the other two in either backness or roundedness, probably both.
That is, if natlangs have / Q / and / A\ / and / O / (all phonemically distinct), probably their [ A\ ] is near-back instead of back and/or (probably "and") unrounded instead of rounded.

The open back rounded phone [ Q ] should differ from the open-mid back rounded phone [ O ] almost as much as the open front unrounded phone [ a ] differs from the open-mid front unrounded phone [ E ].
[ O ] should differ from [ Q ] and the close-mid back rounded phone [ o ] almost as much as [ E ] differs from [ a ] and the close-mid front unrounded phone [ e ].
[ o ] should differ from [ O ] and the close back rounded phone [ u ] almost as much as [ e ] differs from [ E ] and the close front unrounded phone [ i ].
[ u ] should differ from [ o ] almost as much as [ i ] differs from [ e ].

If you have only one open vowel phone, it's likely to be central.
So if your only open vowel phoneme is / a /, it's likely to be usually realized as [ a\ ].

If you have exactly two open vowel phones, they're probably going to be a front unrounded one and a back rounded one; so they're probably going to be [ a ] and [ Q ].
In that case your / a / phoneme is likelier to be usually realized as [ a ].

It's common for a language's vowel inventory to have no central vowels other than an open central vowel, and no open vowels other than an open central vowel. But the more vowels a language has the likelier it is to have more than one central vowel and/or more than one open vowel.

Your close and near-close vowels are likely to occur at at most three backnesses. In fact, you are likely to have no more than four close and near-close vowels.

Almost all languages have a close front unrounded vowel [ i ] and a close back rounded vowel [ u ].
If your language has at least two close or near-close vowels, those are likely to be among them.
Typical close-or-near-close subinventories are:
/ i y M u /
or
/ i I U u /
or
/ i Y m\ u /
or
/ i 1 } u /
or
/ i I\ U\ u /.

Almost all languages have at least one open vowel.
Languages are unlikely to have open and near-open vowels at more than three different backnesses.
In fact languages are unlikely to have more than three open and near-open vowels.
If they have three, they are likely to be a front unrounded one, a central unrounded one, and a back rounded one.
Typical subinventories of open-or-near-open vowels are
/ a a\ Q /
or
/ a 6 Q /
or
/ { a\ Q /.

To a first approximation, every central vowel should be matched by either a front vowel or a back vowel at the same or minimally-different height; and every back vowel should be matched by a front vowel at the same or minimally-different height.

It is common for all of a language's rounded vowels to be back vowels, and for all of its back vowels to be rounded.
But that isn't always the case.

I wanted it to be a little more vowel heavy, but should I forgoe that for a six vowel system of /i } o A { e/? Then there would be 3 front (/i e {/) 2 back (/o A/) and one central (/}/)

If a language has three front unrounded vowel phonemes, their central phones are likelier to be [ i e E ] or [ i E a ] than [ i e { ].
If some of them can be near-front then [ i E\ a ] is also likely.
But if you don't have an open front or near-front vowel phone, but do have an open-mid or near-open one, then
[ i e E ]
or
[ i e { ]
or
[ i E\ { ]
are likely IMO.

If a language has two back vowel phones at two different heights, one of them will be close, and the other will be either open, or near-open, or open-mid. And they will both be rounded.
So [ u O ] and [ u Q ] are both more probable than [ u A ]. ([ A ] is unrounded, in case you made a typo.)
[ u A\_O ] or [ u O_o ] or [ u O_& ] or [ u Q_r ] are also possibilities.
Naturally you'd want simple symbols for your phonemes, so you might use the notations / u O / even though the central phones are [ u ] and one of [ O A\_O O_o O_& Q_r ].

If a language has only one open vowel and only one central vowel, probably it has an open central vowel.
To do without a [ a\ ] open central unrounded vowel, you need to have open or near-open vowels at two different backnesses, one front or near-front and one back or near-back.

Assuming you have an open or near-open front or near-front unrounded vowel ([ a ] or [ { ] or [ a_- ] or [ {_- ] or [ a_x ]), and also have an open or near-open back or near-back rounded vowel (one of [ O A\_O O_o O_& Q_r ]), then it makes sense for you to have your only central vowel be close and unrounded, that is, [ 1 ].

It could also be near-close instead of close, that is, [ I\ ].

I don't think it would be close rounded [ } ].

So I'm saying that a likelier six-vowel inventory would be
[ i E a u Q 1 ] or [ i E\ a u Q I\ ].
That is, [ i 1 u E a Q ] or [ i I\ u E\ a Q ].
Of course, you might denote the phonemes as
/ i E a u O 1 /.
Remember that a phoneme is pronounced the way you say it's pronounced. (Since you're the one creating the language).

And are my vowels jacked up because I'm an Ohioian [?3.haI:.jI:\n]?

I wouldn't know. Sorry.
I thought it might be just because you haven't practised the cardinal vowel-phones as pure phones independent of any phonemes.
I understand that's hard to do without a teacher, but there are online resources that will let you hear recordings -- isolated, after a consonant, before a consonant, between two consonants -- and also show you diagrams of tongue and lip positions as they change, in slow motion or at real speed as you choose.


_______________________________________________________________________________

I hope what I've said makes sense, is not too rambling, is not too long, and is helpful.
Write again if you still have questions.
The basic idea is "spread out in vowel space".

[Vosel]

And are my vowels jacked up because I'm an Ohioian [?3.haI:.jI:\n]?

No, but it's easier to hear the difference between sounds that are phonemic in your language/accent than between those that aren't. There isn't any "correct" pronunciation, all regional accents are equally correct.

I thought it might be just because you haven't practised the cardinal vowel-phones as pure phones independent of any phonemes.
I understand that's hard to do without a teacher, but there are online resources that will let you hear recordings -- isolated, after a consonant, before a consonant, between two consonants -- and also show you diagrams of tongue and lip positions as they change, in slow motion or at real speed as you choose.

There isn't a correct way of pronouncing Q or any other phoneme. Phonetic alphabets are meant to write down sounds used in languages, they don't define them.

[roninbodhisattva]

Stereotypically steps in:

It's unusual for a natlang to have no rhotics at all

Tell that to North America.

I actually am not trying to pick a fight here, I just saw an opportunity.

[MrKrov]

What is the percentage of languages in North America compared to the number of languages not in North America?

[eldin raigmore]

@ronin, @MrK:
I was quoting something I thought I remembered reading. But maybe they were wrong, or I misunderstood them, or maybe I misremembered.

At any rate UPSID Sound Selection says 89.36% of the languages in their sample database don't have any r-sound.

10.64% do contain at least one; 0.89% contain two or more.

15.96% do not contain any lateral. 53.22% contain exactly one lateral. 30.82% contain more than one lateral.

_______________________________________________________________________________

I thought it might be just because you haven't practised the cardinal vowel-phones as pure phones independent of any phonemes.
I understand that's hard to do without a teacher, but there are online resources that will let you hear recordings -- isolated, after a consonant, before a consonant, between two consonants -- and also show you diagrams of tongue and lip positions as they change, in slow motion or at real speed as you choose.

There isn't a correct way of pronouncing Q or any other phoneme. Phonetic alphabets are meant to write down sounds used in languages, they don't define them.

Vosel is right that there's no single correct way to pronounce a phoneme.

Note, though, that in the part of my post Vosel quoted, I was talking about pure phones, not phonemes.

There is a "correct" way of sounding each cardinal vowel phone (not phoneme) on the IPA vowel-chart.

See http://clas.mq.edu.au/phonetics/transcr ... vowel.html.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UIAe4p2I74.
See http://web.uvic.ca/ling/resources/ipa/c ... IPAlab.htm.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@ sirgryfang,
If you choose to denote one of the vowel phonemes in your language as / Q / , you are telling your readers that:
(1) In some circumstances (e.g. by default, perhaps) one allophone of that phoneme is rather close to the [ Q ] phone (open back rounded);
(2) If you also have a / &\ / or / A\ / or / O / or / A / phoneme then the / Q / phoneme is usually further back or more rounded or more open than whichever one of those phonemes could have taken its place.

Now, maybe your 'lang doesn't have any phonemes you'd choose to denote as any of
/ A &\ a\ & A\ O o\ /. If that's the case then your / Q / phoneme could easily sometimes have allophones that sound like one of [ &\ A A\ O ]. Even if it doesn't, still, if a speaker were to pronounce one of those phones where the / Q / phoneme occurs, likely your 'lang's native speakers would recognize it as / Q / with a weird accent.

I still maintain that the cardinal vowel back rounded open, open-mid, and close-mid phones (not phonemes) [ Q O o ] are much more distinct from one another than the front unrounded open, near-open, and open-mid cardinal vowel phones [ a { E ]; and that anyone who hears them pronounced correctly would agree; and that anyone who can't tell that that's the case, probably hasn't heard them pronounced correctly. (For instance, perhaps, because they don't know the difference between phonemes and phones, and/or have been incorrectly taught that there's no correct way to pronounce a phone.) sorry, that sounded snarky; I hope I've stricken it out. I apologize.

_______________________________________________________________________________

According to UPSID Sound Selection, two languages -- Kabardian and Tigre, 0.44% of their sample database -- have only two different vowel qualities (that is, short "no-modifier" normal-voiced monophthongs; they have long vowels). 99.33% of their sample languages have 3 or more vowel phonemes (distinguished only by height and backness and roundedness). Dinka is the only language I searched as as having "no" vowels (actually they report it as having 13 vowels, but all of them are either breathy-voiced or laryngealized). No language has exactly one vowel. 30 languages (6.65%) have exactly three vowels. 41 languages (9.09%) have exactly four. 30.82% (139 languages) have exactly five. 19.07% (86 languages) have exactly six. 16.19% (73 languages) have exactly seven. 5.32% (24 languages) have exactly eight. 7.76% (35 languages) have exactly nine. 2.88% (13 languages) have exactly 10. Seven more languages have more than 10.

7.98% of their languages (36 languages) contain only one close ("high" short no-modifier normal-voiced monophthong) vowel-phoneme. 83.81% contain at least two close vowel-phonemes. 37 languages (8.20%) don't contain any close vowels. 62.75% (283 languages) contain exactly two. 87 languages (19.89%) contain exactly three. Eight languages (1.77%) contain exactly four. No language contains five or more close vowels.

20 languages -- 4.43% of their samples -- don't contain any open ("low" short no-modifier normal-voiced monophthong) vowel phonemes. 95.57% contain at least one. 403 languages, 89.36%, contain exactly one open vowel. 26 languages, 5.76%, contain exactly two open vowels. One language -- Dan -- contains exactly three open vowels. One language -- Woisika -- contains four, and no language contains more than four.

Five languages (1.11%) don't contain any front unrounded vowels. 49 languages -- 10.86% -- contain only one front unrounded vowel. 259 languages -- 57.43% -- contain exactly two front unrounded vowels. 108 languages, 23.95%, contain three front unrounded vowels. 29 languages contain four; one language (Somali) contains five; and none contain six or more.

Eight languages don't contain any back rounded vowels. 83 languages, 18.40%, contain exactly one back rounded vowel. 256 languages, 56.76%, contain exactly two back rounded vowels. 83 languages, 18.40%, contain exactly three back rounded vowels. 20 languages, 4.43%, contain exactly four back rounded vowels. One language -- Aghem -- contains exactly five back rounded vowels. No language contains six or more.

Seven languages don't contain any rounded vowels. 81 languages (17.96%) contain exactly one. 227 languages -- 50.33% -- contain exactly two. 91 languages, 20.18%, contain exactly three. 36 languages (7.98%) contain exactly four. Eight languages (1.77%) contain exactly five. French is the only language with exactly six. No language has seven or more (short no-modifier normal-voiced monophthong) rounded vowels.

35 languages (7.76%) contain exactly two unrounded vowels. 179 (39.69%) contain exactly three. 141 (31.26%) contain exactly four. 54 (11.97%) contain exactly five. 32 (7.10%) contain exactly six. Five languages (1.11%) contain exactly seven unrounded vowels. Three (0.67%) contain exactly eight. Bete is the only language that contains exactly nine unrounded vowels. No language contains ten or more.

420 languages -- 93.13% -- don't contain any front rounded vowels. 14 languages in their sample database -- 3.10% of the languages in their sample -- contain exactly one front rounded vowel. 16 languages (3.55%) contain exactly two. French is the only language that contains exactly three. No language contains four or more.

374 languages -- 82.93% -- do not contain any back unrounded vowels. 58 languages (12.86%) contain exactly one back unrounded vowel. 13 (2.88%) contain exactly two. Six (1.33%) contain three. None contain four or more.

Only four languages (Karen, Khalkha, Malakmalak, and Woisika) contain any near-front ("retracted front") vowels. Each contains only one. They are either mid or close-mid ("higher mid"), and may be unrounded or rounded.

Likewise, only four languages (Azerbaijani, Khalkha, Mandarin, and Woisika) contain any near-back ("fronted back") vowels. Again, each contains only one; they are either mid or close-mid ("higher mid"); and may be unrounded or rounded.

The 'short no_mod normal-voice high front unrounded monophthong' sound [ i ] occurs in 393 languages, 87.14% of all languages in UPSID.
The 'short no_mod normal-voice low central unrounded monophthong' sound [ a\ ] occurs in 392 languages, 86.92% of all languages in UPSID.
The 'short no_mod normal-voice high back rounded monophthong' sound [ u ] occurs in 369 languages, 81.82% of all languages in UPSID.

In descending order by commonness, the most common eight vowel qualities are:
[ i ] close front unrounded 87.14%
[ a\ ] open central unrounded 86.92%
[ u ] close back rounded 81.82%
[ E ] open-mid front unrounded 41.24%
[ o\_- ] or [ O_r ] mid back rounded 40.13%
[ E\_+ ] or [ E_r ] mid front unrounded 37.47%
[ O ] open-mid back rounded 35.92%
[ o ] close-mid back rounded 29.05%

But you don't want to just use that set of eight.
If you have an open-mid front unrounded [ E ] you'd probably rather have a close-mid front unrounded [ e ] than a mid front unrounded [ E\_+ ] or [ E_r ].
And, if you have both a close-mid back rounded [ o ] and an open-mid back rounded [ O ] you probably don't want a mid back rounded [ o\_- ] or [ O_r ].

Maybe you'd try: close front unrounded [ i ], open front unrounded [ a ], open front rounded [ & ], open back unrounded [ A ], open back rounded [ Q ], close back rounded [ u ], close back unrounded [ M ], and close front rounded [ y ]. But that has four open vowels, and no mid vowels and no central vowels.

Or, maybe you'd try: close front unrounded [ i ], mid front unrounded [ E_r or E\_+ ], open front unrounded [ a ], open central unrounded [ a\ ], open back rounded [ Q ], mid back rounded [ O_r or o\_- ], close back rounded [ u ], close central unrounded [ 1 ], and mid central unrounded [ @ ]. That's nine vowels.

Or, maybe you'd try: close front unrounded [ i ], mid front unrounded [ E_r or E\_+ ], open front unrounded [ a ], open back rounded [ Q ], mid back rounded [ O_r or o\_- ], close back rounded [ u ], near-close or close-mid central unrounded [ @\_r ], and open-mid or near-open central unrounded [ 6_r ]. But that violates the statistical fact that, usually, if a column of vowels contains more than one interior vowel, it contains a close vowel.

Or maybe you'd try: close front unrounded [ i ], close-mid front unrounded [ e ], open-mid front unrounded [ E ], open front unrounded [ a ], open back rounded [ Q ], open-mid back rounded [ O ], close-mid back rounded [ o ], and close back rounded [ u ]. But that leaves the central vowels unexploited.

Or you might try: close front unrounded [ i ], mid front unrounded [ E_r or E\_+ ], open front unrounded [ a ], open back rounded [ Q ], mid back rounded [ O_r or o\_- ], close back rounded [ u ], close central unrounded [ 1 ], and mid central unrounded [ @ ]. That's three front vowels, three back vowels, and two central vowels; and, it's three close vowels, three mid vowels, and two open vowels.

For nine vowels, you could have [ i E_r a Q O_r u 1 @ y ]; now you have four close, three mid, and two open vowels, and four front, three back, and two central vowels.

Or you might use [ i E_r a Q O_r u 1 @ I ]; then you'd have four close or near-close, three mid, and two open vowels, and four front or near-front, three back, and two central vowels.

I really think the optimal nine-vowel system, if we don't have phonemic length nor nasalization nor advanced tongue-roots nor devoicing or breathiness nor phonemic pitch or tone nor such things other than height and backness and rounding, is probably
[ i e E a\ O o u 1 @ ]; close and close-mid and open-mid front unrounded and back rounded vowels, close and mid and open central vowels. There's a dialect of Somali with just these vowels.

_______________________________________________________________________________

83.81% of all languages in UPSID contain two or more close vowels; 21.06% contain three or more.

19.29% of all languages in UPSID contain any near-close vowels.

35.70% of all languages in UPSID contain any close-mid vowels.

52.11% of all languages in UPSID contain any mid vowels; 36.81% contain two or more.

49.22% of all languages in UPSID contain any open-mid vowels. (30.82% contain two or more.)

11.75% of all languages in UPSID contain any near-open vowels.

95.57% of all languages in UPSID contain any open vowels; 6.21% contain two or more.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

88.47% of all languages in UPSID contain two or more front vowels; 34.37% contain three or more.

0.89% of all languages in UPSID contain any near-front vowels.

92.68% of all languages in UPSID contain any central vowels; 31.49% contain two or more.

0.89% of all languages in UPSID contain any near-back vowels.

83.37% of all languages in UPSID contain two or more back vowels; 32.59% contain three or more.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

52.33% of all languages in UPSID contain four or more unrounded vowels; 21.06% contain five or more.

80.49% of all languages in UPSID contain two or more rounded vowels; 30.16% contain three or more.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Vosel]

Vosel is right that there's no single correct way to pronounce a phoneme.

Note, though, that in the part of my post Vosel quoted, I was talking about pure phones, not phonemes.

There is a "correct" way of sounding each cardinal vowel phone (not phoneme) on the IPA vowel-chart.

No, you are wrong. There is an infinite amount of possible phones, none of them is more correct than any other. "correct" or "incorrect" pronunciation is meaningful only within the context of the language. If it's within the range of how it's pronounced by native speakers then it's correct.
Cardinal vowels may be useful as a reference to which symbol should be used for transcription but they are not more "correct" than any other vowel. And AFAIK, the only definition there is is that they all should sound equally different from neighboring cardinal vowels.

I still maintain that the cardinal vowel back rounded open, open-mid, and close-mid phones (not phonemes) [ Q O o ] are much more distinct from one another than the front unrounded open, near-open, and open-mid cardinal vowel phones [ a { E ];

That is not a matter of opinion, this is how they are defined. But as I said, I'm not aware there is an objective definition.

and that anyone who hears them pronounced correctly would agree; and that anyone who can't tell that that's the case, probably hasn't heard them pronounced correctly.

As I said previously, most people are strongly biased in favour of distinctions that are phonemic in their language/accent, especially if they were not significantly exposed to more than one language.

BTW, are you sure you mean [ Q O o ] and not [ A O o ] ? According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_S ... c_Alphabet it should be [ A O o ]. Q sounds much closer to O than A does.

[Nortaneous]

Normally, any column of interior vowels that contains at least two vowels, contains a close (high) vowel.

I don't think this applies to central vowels. /3/ is close enough to /@/ that it could work.

I think the inventory could be fixed by either dropping /{/ or changing /a/ to /Q/ or /O/.