(Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
Arayaz
roman
roman
Posts: 1218
Joined: 07 Sep 2022 00:24
Location: Just south of the pin-pen merger
Contact:

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Arayaz »

Thanks.

I'm making this language naturalistic, like all of my good languages, but I'm trying to do things in fours (e.g. four primary places of articulation, four consonants per syllable max, four-vowel system, etc.), and the four series of stops/sibilants I had planned seemed weird. (I'm not sure if I've ever seen a language with /ʑʷ/ before, though I'm sure it's found somewhere.)
Proud member of the myopic-trans-southerner-Viossa-girl-with-two-cats-who-joined-on-September-6th-2022 gang

:con: Ruykkarraber languages, Izre, Ngama, Areyaxi languages, ???, 2c2ef0
my garbage

she/her
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3024
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by sangi39 »

Üdj wrote: 30 Oct 2022 03:55 Thanks.

I'm making this language naturalistic, like all of my good languages, but I'm trying to do things in fours (e.g. four primary places of articulation, four consonants per syllable max, four-vowel system, etc.), and the four series of stops/sibilants I had planned seemed weird. (I'm not sure if I've ever seen a language with /ʑʷ/ before, though I'm sure it's found somewhere.)
/ʑʷ/ turns up in Ubykh and a couple dialects of Abkhaz, off the top of my head

My only concern is treating labialisation almost a seperate Manner of Articulation:

/p t ʨ k/
/pʼ tʼ ʨʼ kʼ/
/b d ʥ ɡ/
/bʷ dʷ ʥʷ ɡʷ/

I can't immediately think of a language that treats labialisation in this sort of way, while it's usually treated as a contrast with "plain" consonants across most of the phoneme inventory (as in Ubykh, Abkhaz, etc.) or within a restricted range of places of articulation (like in Tlingit, Akan, Hadza, etc.).
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
User avatar
Arayaz
roman
roman
Posts: 1218
Joined: 07 Sep 2022 00:24
Location: Just south of the pin-pen merger
Contact:

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Arayaz »

sangi39 wrote: 30 Oct 2022 11:07
Üdj wrote: 30 Oct 2022 03:55 Thanks.

I'm making this language naturalistic, like all of my good languages, but I'm trying to do things in fours (e.g. four primary places of articulation, four consonants per syllable max, four-vowel system, etc.), and the four series of stops/sibilants I had planned seemed weird. (I'm not sure if I've ever seen a language with /ʑʷ/ before, though I'm sure it's found somewhere.)
/ʑʷ/ turns up in Ubykh and a couple dialects of Abkhaz, off the top of my head

My only concern is treating labialisation almost a seperate Manner of Articulation:

/p t ʨ k/
/pʼ tʼ ʨʼ kʼ/
/b d ʥ ɡ/
/bʷ dʷ ʥʷ ɡʷ/

I can't immediately think of a language that treats labialisation in this sort of way, while it's usually treated as a contrast with "plain" consonants across most of the phoneme inventory (as in Ubykh, Abkhaz, etc.) or within a restricted range of places of articulation (like in Tlingit, Akan, Hadza, etc.).
Can you think of another series I could use that would be more natural? (e.g. palatalized, implosive, etc.)
Proud member of the myopic-trans-southerner-Viossa-girl-with-two-cats-who-joined-on-September-6th-2022 gang

:con: Ruykkarraber languages, Izre, Ngama, Areyaxi languages, ???, 2c2ef0
my garbage

she/her
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 3030
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Salmoneus »

sangi39 wrote: 30 Oct 2022 11:07
Üdj wrote: 30 Oct 2022 03:55 Thanks.

I'm making this language naturalistic, like all of my good languages, but I'm trying to do things in fours (e.g. four primary places of articulation, four consonants per syllable max, four-vowel system, etc.), and the four series of stops/sibilants I had planned seemed weird. (I'm not sure if I've ever seen a language with /ʑʷ/ before, though I'm sure it's found somewhere.)
/ʑʷ/ turns up in Ubykh and a couple dialects of Abkhaz, off the top of my head

My only concern is treating labialisation almost a seperate Manner of Articulation:

/p t ʨ k/
/pʼ tʼ ʨʼ kʼ/
/b d ʥ ɡ/
/bʷ dʷ ʥʷ ɡʷ/

I can't immediately think of a language that treats labialisation in this sort of way, while it's usually treated as a contrast with "plain" consonants across most of the phoneme inventory (as in Ubykh, Abkhaz, etc.) or within a restricted range of places of articulation (like in Tlingit, Akan, Hadza, etc.).

It is rather weird, but I think it's naturalistic! (I've even toyed with doing it myself, though not in any current plans)

The key real-world semi-exemplars here are the semitic and other afro-asiatic languages... where of course this doesn't happen. But what HAS seemingly happened is a shift (occuring independently in multiple languages) from original ejective consonants into pharyngealisation. And reportedly in some dialects of Arabic this pharyngealisation has progressed further, into uvularisation or even velarisation.

So to me it doesn't seem unreasonable for an originally ejective complete series to develop into a parallel velarised series. And from there, it's not hard to imagine velarisation being reinforced as labiovelarisation, which could then develop into plain labialisation if prefered (eg velarisation in Irish is realised as labialisation in some situations). New ejectives could then be formed from another source.


So I agree that it's rather weird, and I'm not aware of any actual examples of this in real languages. But if someone really wanted it to happen I think it could occur through plausible, naturalistic pathways.


-----

Udj: a broader problem you will have is that naturalistic languages don't "do things in fours", or in any regular pattern for that matter. So a language that is highly 'symmetrical', as it were, in this way is automatically going to look artificial and unconvincing. [although of course coincidences do happen even in reality]
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4079
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Omzinesý »

A new question continuing my old one

I have an IE lang that develops to having two series of stops, voices and voiceless, like Slavic and Iranian.
I would, however, like to make all resonant+stop clusters become resonant+glottal stop clusters and then glottalized resonants. The lang has a tendency to get rid of closed syllables that way.

Voiceless stops becoming a glottal stop is easy (happens in English). But how to make the voiced stops become glottal stops after resonants? After a resonant is rather an environment where stops are voiced.

One solution is to devoice all stops, but I wouldn't like to get rid of all voiced stops.
Another idea is that I don't have to get rid or all resonant+stop clusters, but then there would still be closed syllables.

Could getting rid of closed syllables be such a motor to reverse the normal direction of sound changes? Or could analogy just do the job?
Omzinesý wrote: 08 Oct 2022 12:57 Thank you both

If I understood corretly, this is the usual way of gaining glottalized resonants
nt -> nʔ -> n̰
Nearly all languages have resonant + stop clusters.

Salmoneus mentioned phonations like creaky voice. I think it could develop from a tone and tone can develop from stress.
We once discussed a German dialect that developed a creaky voice from word-final r.

"I did just want to add one thing that was implicit in my earlier post: phonation contrasts and related contrasts (like glottalisation) can develop from stress and word position. You could, for instance, have initial or final consonants regularly become glottalised (though this could also be accomplished through epenthetic initial or final glottal stops, as in germanic languages, which could then yield glottalisation through feature spreading / fusion)."
That is a good point too. Glottalization can be an emphatic (in the non-Semitic sense) feature in the beginning.


I was actually playing with an idea about a PIE lang with glottalized resonants. Glottalization there could well be caused by "laryngeals". Some theories also pose that the "plain voiced plosives" were actually glottalized, implosives maybe.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3024
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by sangi39 »

Omzinesý wrote: 30 Oct 2022 17:59 A new question continuing my old one

I have an IE lang that develops to having two series of stops, voices and voiceless, like Slavic and Iranian.
I would, however, like to make all resonant+stop clusters become resonant+glottal stop clusters and then glottalized resonants. The lang has a tendency to get rid of closed syllables that way.

Voiceless stops becoming a glottal stop is easy (happens in English). But how to make the voiced stops become glottal stops after resonants? After a resonant is rather an environment where stops are voiced.

One solution is to devoice all stops, but I wouldn't like to get rid of all voiced stops.
Another idea is that I don't have to get rid or all resonant+stop clusters, but then there would still be closed syllables.

Could getting rid of closed syllables be such a motor to reverse the normal direction of sound changes? Or could analogy just do the job?
Omzinesý wrote: 08 Oct 2022 12:57 Thank you both

If I understood corretly, this is the usual way of gaining glottalized resonants
nt -> nʔ -> n̰
Nearly all languages have resonant + stop clusters.

Salmoneus mentioned phonations like creaky voice. I think it could develop from a tone and tone can develop from stress.
We once discussed a German dialect that developed a creaky voice from word-final r.

"I did just want to add one thing that was implicit in my earlier post: phonation contrasts and related contrasts (like glottalisation) can develop from stress and word position. You could, for instance, have initial or final consonants regularly become glottalised (though this could also be accomplished through epenthetic initial or final glottal stops, as in germanic languages, which could then yield glottalisation through feature spreading / fusion)."
That is a good point too. Glottalization can be an emphatic (in the non-Semitic sense) feature in the beginning.


I was actually playing with an idea about a PIE lang with glottalized resonants. Glottalization there could well be caused by "laryngeals". Some theories also pose that the "plain voiced plosives" were actually glottalized, implosives maybe.
Would something like [mb nd ŋg] > [mm nn ŋŋ] > [mʔm nʔn ŋʔŋ] > [mʔm nʔn ŋʔŋ] > [mʔ nʔ ŋʔ] work? At least for nasals
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 3030
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Salmoneus »

That's exactly what I'd do: stops drop after resonants, lengthening the resonant; then geminate resonants become singleton glottalised resonants, under pressure from a tendency to have only open syllables.

I can't immediately find anything saying that geminates can become glottalised, but I can't see why it couldn't happen. The syllable boundary can be reinforced by a glottal stop, which can then glottalise the resonant, surely.
User avatar
Arayaz
roman
roman
Posts: 1218
Joined: 07 Sep 2022 00:24
Location: Just south of the pin-pen merger
Contact:

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Arayaz »

Salmoneus wrote: 30 Oct 2022 13:34 ...
Udj: a broader problem you will have is that naturalistic languages don't "do things in fours", or in any regular pattern for that matter. So a language that is highly 'symmetrical', as it were, in this way is automatically going to look artificial and unconvincing. [although of course coincidences do happen even in reality]
I'm not using it for everything, just as a general theme. (e.g. four noun classes, four tenses, etc.)
Proud member of the myopic-trans-southerner-Viossa-girl-with-two-cats-who-joined-on-September-6th-2022 gang

:con: Ruykkarraber languages, Izre, Ngama, Areyaxi languages, ???, 2c2ef0
my garbage

she/her
Knox Adjacent
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 172
Joined: 24 Oct 2022 04:34

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Knox Adjacent »

Retroflexes: I'm unsatisfied with typical digraph ways of writing them. I especially don't welcome r+[alveolar]. Currently in in non-IPA I settle for [Alveolar]+:. Help???
User avatar
Arayaz
roman
roman
Posts: 1218
Joined: 07 Sep 2022 00:24
Location: Just south of the pin-pen merger
Contact:

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Arayaz »

Knox Adjacent wrote: 30 Oct 2022 22:48 Retroflexes: I'm unsatisfied with typical digraph ways of writing them. I especially don't welcome r+[alveolar]. Currently in in non-IPA I settle for [Alveolar]+:. Help???
What I normally use for retroflexes is an underdot: ṭ, ḍ, ṇ, ṣ, ṛ, etc. (This may be less convenient if you can't type an underdot, though. If not, here's a list of all of them to copy-and-paste: ṭ ḍ ṇ ṣ ẓ ṛ ḷ.)
Proud member of the myopic-trans-southerner-Viossa-girl-with-two-cats-who-joined-on-September-6th-2022 gang

:con: Ruykkarraber languages, Izre, Ngama, Areyaxi languages, ???, 2c2ef0
my garbage

she/her
Knox Adjacent
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 172
Joined: 24 Oct 2022 04:34

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Knox Adjacent »

Looking for digraphs not involving <r>. I would totally use underdots otherwise.
User avatar
Arayaz
roman
roman
Posts: 1218
Joined: 07 Sep 2022 00:24
Location: Just south of the pin-pen merger
Contact:

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Arayaz »

Knox Adjacent wrote: 30 Oct 2022 23:35 Looking for digraphs not involving <r>. I would totally use underdots otherwise.
I've never used a digraph for retroflexes except in one of my earliest languages, where I doubled the alveolar character. However, as a general rule of thumb, I say don't trust any languages I made before (and maybe including) Kuana, so this won't help much.
Proud member of the myopic-trans-southerner-Viossa-girl-with-two-cats-who-joined-on-September-6th-2022 gang

:con: Ruykkarraber languages, Izre, Ngama, Areyaxi languages, ???, 2c2ef0
my garbage

she/her
User avatar
VaptuantaDoi
roman
roman
Posts: 1066
Joined: 18 Nov 2019 07:35

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by VaptuantaDoi »

Knox Adjacent wrote: 30 Oct 2022 23:35 Looking for digraphs not involving <r>. I would totally use underdots otherwise.
The only other option I can think of is <th dh> like in Javanese.
Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 3030
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Salmoneus »

There's also <ty> or <tl> - neither is 'accurate', but both convey some suggestion of what's going on. A totally illogical but quite practical option might be <td> and <dt> (whichever way around you prefer). Or you could just introduce a character just for the purpose of indicating this, and have <xt> or <ct> or the like. [or <tc>, or <tx>]

If retroflexes are common, you could go the whole hog and go the Irish way: have consonant qualities indicated by surrounding vowels. For instance, you could say "all 'alveolar' consonants after or before < i > are actually retroflex". Then /i/ can be, say, <io> before non-retroflex, or <ai> after one.
Knox Adjacent
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 172
Joined: 24 Oct 2022 04:34

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Knox Adjacent »

I'm leaning Cx as my best alternative. Thanks.
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4079
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Omzinesý »

sangi39 wrote: 30 Oct 2022 18:49
Would something like [mb nd ŋg] > [mm nn ŋŋ] > [mʔm nʔn ŋʔŋ] > [mʔm nʔn ŋʔŋ] > [mʔ nʔ ŋʔ] work? At least for nasals
That sounds elegant and much simpler than what I thought.
rt -> rr is a very plausible sound change too.
Salmoneus wrote: 30 Oct 2022 21:08 That's exactly what I'd do: stops drop after resonants, lengthening the resonant; then geminate resonants become singleton glottalised resonants, under pressure from a tendency to have only open syllables.

I can't immediately find anything saying that geminates can become glottalised, but I can't see why it couldn't happen. The syllable boundary can be reinforced by a glottal stop, which can then glottalise the resonant, surely.
Syllable boundary phenomena, like Danish stød, could be a road. Geminates can easily devoice but I don't know about glottalization.
Prestopping of geminates could probably also lead to glottalization.

Thank you both!
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
Arayaz
roman
roman
Posts: 1218
Joined: 07 Sep 2022 00:24
Location: Just south of the pin-pen merger
Contact:

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Arayaz »

If I have a labiovelar series, would it be realistic to have /x͡ɸ/? I have not found it in any natlang.
Proud member of the myopic-trans-southerner-Viossa-girl-with-two-cats-who-joined-on-September-6th-2022 gang

:con: Ruykkarraber languages, Izre, Ngama, Areyaxi languages, ???, 2c2ef0
my garbage

she/her
User avatar
Omzinesý
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4079
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Omzinesý »

Üdj wrote: 31 Oct 2022 15:38 If I have a labiovelar series, would it be realistic to have /x͡ɸ/? I have not found it in any natlang.
Look at ʍ. English has it.
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
User avatar
Arayaz
roman
roman
Posts: 1218
Joined: 07 Sep 2022 00:24
Location: Just south of the pin-pen merger
Contact:

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by Arayaz »

Omzinesý wrote: 31 Oct 2022 16:51
Üdj wrote: 31 Oct 2022 15:38 If I have a labiovelar series, would it be realistic to have /x͡ɸ/? I have not found it in any natlang.
Look at ʍ. English has it.
I thought /ʍ/ was /w̥/ or /xʷ/.
Proud member of the myopic-trans-southerner-Viossa-girl-with-two-cats-who-joined-on-September-6th-2022 gang

:con: Ruykkarraber languages, Izre, Ngama, Areyaxi languages, ???, 2c2ef0
my garbage

she/her
User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3024
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: (Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

Post by sangi39 »

Üdj wrote: 31 Oct 2022 15:38 If I have a labiovelar series, would it be realistic to have /x͡ɸ/? I have not found it in any natlang.
At least according to Wikipedia (and a quick Google search), there's only one language, Avatime, spoken in Ghana, which reportedly has /x͡ɸ/ and /ɣ͡β/, but then the article (and it looks like the sources as well), lean heavily towards these actually being /xʷ/ and /ɣʷ/

/x͡ɸ/ for English mostly seems to be restricted to the Talk page for the Wikipedia article "Pronunciation of English ⟨wh⟩" (I haven't seen it anywhere else online yet).

It does look like /x͡ɸ/ might be at least phonetically "unstable", but you might have a language where, say, /xʷ/ that exists as a distinct phoneme but, as in Avatime, behaves in a similar manner to the more standard labial-velars, and probably ultimately derives from older /x͡ɸ/, but just become labiovelar instead
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.
Post Reply