Phonology choice

If you're new to these arts, this is the place to ask "stupid" questions and get directions!
Post Reply
GizmoLangs24
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 14
Joined: 15 Feb 2019 02:52

Phonology choice

Post by GizmoLangs24 »

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-
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 3021
Joined: 22 Nov 2014 04:48

Re: Phonology choice

Post by elemtilas »

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/
User avatar
spanick
roman
roman
Posts: 1336
Joined: 11 May 2017 01:47
Location: California

Re: Phonology choice

Post by spanick »

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>
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.
GizmoLangs24
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 14
Joined: 15 Feb 2019 02:52

Re: Phonology choice

Post by GizmoLangs24 »

spanick wrote: 03 Apr 2019 17:35
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.
Hello!

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-
Post Reply