(Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here [2010-2020]

[Golahet]

"I entered a house. Then I went out of said house."

Not too wierd, I think.

[LusorVerbo4]

The evolution of "said" to "the" would probably be: "said" > "that"/"this" > "the".

My question is: in the phonological set /p t k m n N f s x a i u/, what are the most likely pronunciation errors for children to make?

[Maximillian]

Guy¹, "Blah."
Guy², "Said plan is a terrible idea."

Oops, I read it as "sad" at first. :oops:
That way it actually seems interesting. I don't know of a language that had this, but it probably could be done.

My question is: in the phonological set /p t k m n N f s x a i u/, what are the most likely pronunciation errors for children to make?

All of these are pretty basic sounds, and children acquire them quite easily. I know that rhotics and l-like sounds are difficult. I myself had a trouble with hard /l/ in Russian. I pronounced it as /w/, like in Polish. But in your set, I guess, /x/ is the hardest to learn.

[Testyal]

How do you make a phonology? Something like /p d/<p d>?

[goneriku]

/phoneme/ [allophone] <orthography>
Other than that, go on zompist.com and look up the Language Construction Kit- it'll help you get started.

[SLiV]

How do you make a phonology?

Was that "how does one make a phonology?" or "how do you make a phonology?"?

I usually just fiddle about. First I'll add some basics, then add some, then remove some, change some etc.

[Micamo]

How do you make a phonology?

Was that "how does one make a phonology?" or "how do you make a phonology?"?

I usually just fiddle about. First I'll add some basics, then add some, then remove some, change some etc.

For consonants I just add/remove dimensions, then touch a few peculiarities. Let's say:

Types: Stops, Frictives, Nasals, Liquids
Articulation: Bilabial, Alveolar, Retroflex, Velar, Uvular
Distinctions: Voicing over Stops and Frictives, Implosives

Now we'll remove implosive retroflex, velar, and uvular, velar and uvular voiceless frictives, remove the dorsal nasals, and change bilabial frictives to labiodentals.

This gives us: /p t ʈ k q b d ɖ g ɢ ɓ ɗ f s ʂ v z ʐ ɣ ʁ m n ɳ l ɭ j/

As for vowels they tend to form a pretty regular "shape" in the vowel space and also tend to have dimensions just like consonants do. For this case let's have a diamond-esque system with nasals: /i a u ɨ ə ĩ ã ũ/

EDIT: Why not? Let's make 'em high vowels!

Phonotactics just needs to follow the sonority hierarchy with some additional complications. That's SFNAVANFS. For our example let's get this down to (S(A)|F(A)|N)V(A|F)(S).

And, just from this, now we can get a few lovely example words:

/sũɓ/
/zĩɭ.bĩʂg.ɳĩk/
/mũl.ɓuaʐ/
/nã.ʂiɭ/
/ʐɭãz/

[Nortaneous]

How do I make a phonology? I usually start with an idea that I want to build a phonology around. (So far, I've built one around a minimal phoneme inventory with piles of allophony and one around whistled sibilants, and I'm currently considering one with an... interesting vowel system (think Scottish Gaelic, but worse) but it'll be a while before I do anything with it.) I usually end up knocking the idea around in my head for a few weeks: How can I make the rest of the grid interesting? How can I keep it realistic? How can I throw in a few gaps or things that aren't usually used so it doesn't look like the standard conlang inventory of /p t k b d g f s S h m n N l r j w/? (Having an interdental approximant, whistled sibilants and affricates, a batshit diphthong system, an interdental stop (only in some dialects), and a full inventory of fricatives in one lang is probably sort of overkill, but what the hell, I've done it anyway. Same with having pharyngealized consonants, uvulars, retroflexes, and contrastive rounding and palatalization on consonants (but only word-finally!), but those were in a different language and they were only allophonic.) After that, I work out the vowel system (so far, usually pretty simple, since I don't put much thought into them (except the diphthongs, since they're occasionally useful for allophony): I have one lang with /a e i 1 u/ and diphthongs /ae ai a1 au ei e1 eu i1 iu 1i 1u ui u1/ and one with /a E e i u/ and /ae ai au Eu ea ei eu ia ie iu ua uE ue ui/.) Then I throw in some allophony (the best part, I'd say, but I'm not sure how to explain how I do it -- I pretty much add whatever sounds right), unless the language doesn't look like it can handle much allophony without making it sound like shit or ruining the fun of the phonology, in which case I get pissed for a while and then start making the dialectal variation absolutely batshit to make up for the lack of interesting allophony.

[MrKrov]

From where could I evolve a direct-inverse affix?

[Maximillian]

From where could I evolve a direct-inverse affix?

What is it?

[MrKrov]

Something that looks like this, or better yet this

[BagelBomb]

Hey folks! I'm making a syllabary which includes rounded and unrounded versions of any consonant that isn't already labial.

So, when it comes to [l] versus [lʷ] , is it a viable distinction? The way I've been saying it to myself ends up sounding something like [ʋ] (labio-dental approximant), only with the tongue touching the back of the teeth. Depending on how I analyze it, I'll either be writing [lʷ] as <lw> or <r>.

So, unlabialized "la" versus labialized "lwa" or "ra". What do you think?

Edit: Working further, it seems I might have need for a labialized palatal approximant, [jʷ], when a diphthong ending in /i/ is followed by a /w/. It actually sounds quite lovely to me. Once again, does it seem a possible occurance to you guys?

Example: <kaiwa> is pronounced [kajʷa].

[Micamo]

A quick question about tonal languages: How tenable is it to have only a phonemic downstep in roots, but use contour tone distinction for grammatical inflection?

[Wanderer]

Hey folks! I'm making a syllabary which includes rounded and unrounded versions of any consonant that isn't already labial.

So, when it comes to [l] versus [lʷ] , is it a viable distinction? The way I've been saying it to myself ends up sounding something like [ʋ] (labio-dental approximant), only with the tongue touching the back of the teeth. Depending on how I analyze it, I'll either be writing [lʷ] as <lw> or <r>.

So, unlabialized "la" versus labialized "lwa" or "ra". What do you think?

Edit: Working further, it seems I might have need for a labialized palatal approximant, [jʷ], when a diphthong ending in /i/ is followed by a /w/. It actually sounds quite lovely to me. Once again, does it seem a possible occurance to you guys?

Example: <kaiwa> is pronounced [kajʷa].

There is a language which does all of this, making a labialization distinction in all consonants at all places of articulation, including labial. (I'm asuming /w/ and /ɰ~ʁ/ form a pair with labialization distinction in this language though)

Not only does this language have /lʷ/, it also has /ʎʷ/ /l̪ʷ/ and /ɭʷ/, all distinct of their unlabialized counterparts. I also has /jʷ/ and many others. (for instance /ʈɳʷ/ )

For more info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrernte_l ... Consonants

So yes, all consonant you doubted about, and much more, has all been done in at least one natural language, which makes it a possible occurence for the sake of your conlang.

[David McCann]

Hey folks! I'm making a syllabary which includes rounded and unrounded versions of any consonant that isn't already labial.

In natural languages I think that only happens if there is no /i/ ~ /u/ contrast; e.g. a /a ə ɨ/ vowel system.

[Nortaneous]

So, unlabialized "la" versus labialized "lwa" or "ra". What do you think?

You'd probably want that to fall in a series with other labialized consonants, but it could just be a phonological oddity. I once read about a lang that had a pretty average phonology, except with a prelabialized lateral flap or something. So it's not entirely unrealistic, as long as you have a good diachronic explanation for it. (Maybe it came from /ɫ/? Or /vl/ clusters? Or maybe initial /w/+liquid clusters were possible at some point, but /w/ dropped before every liquid except /l/? That last one is how /rʷ/ developed in English, anyway, although I don't think there are any dialects that still contrast it with /r/.)

Edit: Working further, it seems I might have need for a labialized palatal approximant, [jʷ], when a diphthong ending in /i/ is followed by a /w/. It actually sounds quite lovely to me. Once again, does it seem a possible occurance to you guys?

Example: <kaiwa> is pronounced [kajʷa].

[jʷ] is [ɥ]. That could happen, I guess.

Hey folks! I'm making a syllabary which includes rounded and unrounded versions of any consonant that isn't already labial.

In natural languages I think that only happens if there is no /i/ ~ /u/ contrast; e.g. a /a ə ɨ/ vowel system.

Damn, I hope not; one of my conlangs has /tʰʷ tʷ sʷ nʷ kʰʷ kʷ ŋʷ/ or something like that and /a e ə i ɨ u/. My excuse is that they were formed when /o/ was lost.

[Maximillian]

[jʷ] is [ɥ].

No, [ɥ] to [w] is like [y] to , i.e., [ɥ] is the consonant version of [y].

[LetoAtreides]

[jʷ] is [ɥ].

No, [ɥ] to [w] is like [y] to , i.e., [ɥ] is the consonant version of [y].

You both are right because [ɥ] is to [j] what [y] is to and [y] is nothing but with lip rounding.

[sangi39]

[jʷ] is [ɥ].

No, [ɥ] to [w] is like [y] to , i.e., [ɥ] is the consonant version of [y].

You both are right because [ɥ] is to [j] what [y] is to and [y] is nothing but with lip rounding.

Agreed :) Plus, in at least the wikipedia article on the sound, they've stated "It is a labialized [j] (also transcribable as [jʷ]), and the semivocalic counterpart of the close front rounded vowel [y]".

[Maximillian]

Plus, in at least the wikipedia article on the sound, they've stated "It is a labialized [j] (also transcribable as [jʷ]), and the semivocalic counterpart of the close front rounded vowel [y]".

That just sounds wrong to me. I can definitely (at least in my head) distinguish between French [nɥi] and a hypothetical [njʷi]. =\