Hello!
You may have seen my previous post about my phonology, which I posted a couple weeks ago and found an answer to.
Well, school got in the way of conlanging for a bit and I was super busy during that time, and looking back, the phonology did not look the way I wanted it to, and the language I was working with was unfinished, and was not quite turning out how I wanted it to.
Now that I am un-busy, I am starting a new conlang, but I need a phonology first.
I have created a phonology for it, based roughly on 3 languages I am familiar with: German, Spanish, and English. I am looking for feedback since I am still new here.
Phonoloɡy:
/p b t d k ɡ/ <p b t d k ɡ>
/m n ɲ ʀ/ <m n ň r>
/f s ʃ x/ <v s š x>
/l j w/ <l j w>
/i u ə/ <i u e*>
/a e o/ <a e o>
Thank you for reading!
-Gizmo-
Phonology choice
Re: Phonology choice
1. Never let school get in the way of important things like language invention! (joke only!)
2. Nice, simple inventory.
For a (presently unnamed invented language) with example text here, I chose a similar scheme:
/p t k f θ x/
/m n ŋ w l ɹ/
/b d g j h hw/
/a æ ɛ ɪ o ʌ/
2. Nice, simple inventory.
For a (presently unnamed invented language) with example text here, I chose a similar scheme:
/p t k f θ x/
/m n ŋ w l ɹ/
/b d g j h hw/
/a æ ɛ ɪ o ʌ/
Re: Phonology choice
Overall it's a nice, simple SAE kind of phonology but there's a couple of orthography questions I have:GizmoLangs24 wrote: ↑03 Apr 2019 05:37 Phonoloɡy:
/p b t d k ɡ/ <p b t d k ɡ>
/m n ɲ ʀ/ <m n ň r>
/f s ʃ x/ <v s š x>
/l j w/ <l j w>
/i u ə/ <i u e*>
/a e o/ <a e o>
1. why <v> for /f/ when you haven't even used <f>?
2. why <x> for /x/ when you haven't even used <h>?
3. why is your uvular trill <r> grouped with the nasals?
4. is your schwa actually phonemic? why not use a letter other than <e> or add a diacritic?
I'm guessing the answers to (1) and (4) lie with your familiarity with German.
-
- rupestrian
- Posts: 14
- Joined: 15 Feb 2019 02:52
Re: Phonology choice
spanick wrote: ↑03 Apr 2019 17:35Hello!GizmoLangs24 wrote: ↑03 Apr 2019 05:37 Overall it's a nice, simple SAE kind of phonology but there's a couple of orthography questions I have:
1. why <v> for /f/ when you haven't even used <f>?
2. why <x> for /x/ when you haven't even used <h>?
3. why is your uvular trill <r> grouped with the nasals?
4. is your schwa actually phonemic? why not use a letter other than <e> or add a diacritic?
I'm guessing the answers to (1) and (4) lie with your familiarity with German.
1. Yes indeed, for some reason I really like using <v> to represent [f], probably my love for German there. :p
2. I have no reason to I suppose, I thought it made the language have a really different spelling system, but I suppose pronunciation is more important.
3. If you know Gizmo, you know he likes groups to have similar amounts of stuff. It annoyed me to put <r> by itself, but I am not sure of grouping customs when conlanging here. Overall, unsure here.
4. Also related, of course, to german. I was planning on letting <e> represent the schwa at the end of a word, just like german. It seems really convenient to me. :p
Thanks for your feedback. Gizmo is gracious. C:
-Gizmo-