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

[Omzinesý]

I'm wondering subject properties of chain verb constructions. In (1), come and give share the subject and subject marking is straightforward, but in (2), the subject of die is the object of hit. How do languages with serial verbs mark it or should it just be understood from the context? I understand different languages do it differently but what strategies there are?

(1)
[ X ] [ [ come ] [ give Y ] ]
'X brought Y.'

(2)
[ X hit ( Y ] die )
'X killed Y.'

I think you might be getting clause-chaining mixed up with serial-verb constructions.
They’re not the same.
I also* made that mistake, so maybe it’s easy to make.
*(that is, I made that mistake. The word “also” is called for only if you made that mistake!)

Switch-reference marking is unnecessary and impossible in a serial-verb clause. It’s a single clause, it just has more than one verb. Typically they all have the same aspect, modality/mode/mood, polarity, tense, and voice; and all have the same subject. Frequently they are also required to all have the same valency. In the event they don’t all have the same subject, they usually all have the same object.

Switch-reference marking is necessary in clause-chains.

You’ll have an easier time finding information on-line about it if you know the right search-terms.

I wrote quite a bit about it, back in the day, on this board, and That Other Board; but maybe some of it has been purged.

Here’s some Google hits.

Spoiler:

Search Results
Wikipedia › wiki › Switch-reference
Web results
Switch-reference - Wikipedia
The basic distinction made by a switch-reference system is whether the following clause has the same subject (SS) or a different subject (DS). That is known as canonical switch-reference.
GitHub.io › io › papers › thesisPDF
Clause Chaining, Switch Reference and Coordination - Rafael Nonato
by R Nonato · 2014 · Cited by 34 · Related articles
Feb 7, 2014 · elsewhere as clause chaining is actually asymmetric clausal coordination. The special properties ... cent conjuncts have the same or different subjects (switch-reference marking). Important evidence .
GitHub.io › io › doo10chainPDF
Exploring Clause Chaining
by RA Dooley · 2010 · Cited by 18 · Related articles
Mbyá Guarani and many other chaining languages have markers of SWITCH REFERENCE, although chaining ... In Kanite switch reference, 'same subject' is zero while 'different subject' is -ke, and clauses a) - f ...
Semantic Scholar › pdfs › ...PDF
On Case Concord: the Syntax of Switch-reference Clauses - Semantic Scholar
by J Camacho · Cited by 42 · Related articles
ject, but triggers same subject marking on the SR clause, or it may be the case that an experiencer argument that ..... possible to have another SR clause as the reference clause, yielding a chain of SR clauses the last of ...
https://books.google.com › books
The Sino-Tibetan Languages
Randy J. LaPolla, Graham Thurgood · 2006 · Foreign Language Study
7 CLAUSE CHAINS AND SWITCH REFERENCE Clause chains are central to the structure of Kham sentences. ... are marked with varying degrees of inflection depending on whether they are 'same-subject' or 'different- ...
https://books.google.com › books
The Manambu Language of East Sepik, Papua New Guinea
Alexandra Aikhenvald · 2008 · Language Arts & Disciplines
Examples 17.4, T2.4–5, and T2.13–18 illustrate lengthy clause chains where the subject change is marked with switch-reference-sensitive suffixes. If a clause marked as same subject is followed by another clause also ...
https://books.google.com › books
Topic and Discourse Structure in West Greenlandic Agreement ...
Anna Berge · 2011 · Language Arts & Disciplines
In clause chains, switch-reference marking is found on the dependent, nonfinal clauses. ... reference: a form is restricted if it can have only same or different subject reference, and open if it can have either. Languages ...
FrontiersIn.org › research-topics › a...
Web results
Acquisition of Clause Chaining | Frontiers Research Topic
This marking, known as switch-reference, requires the speaker to know in advance what the subject of the upcoming clause will be. ... Some languages have multiple converb forms that denote different temporal or aspectual relationships between clauses in the chain.
Dartmouth College › journals › article
Switch-attention (aka switch-reference) in South-American temporal clauses: facilitating oral transmission - Dartmouth College Library Publishing Project
Switch-reference (henceforthSR) marking systems are found in many parts of the world, and in many different forms ..... First, different-subject clauses can be marked for imperfective versus perfective aspect, same ...
KU › kuscholarworks › handlePDF
A Survey of Switch-Reference in North America - KU ScholarWorks - The University of Kansas
by A McKenzie · 2015 · Cited by 11 · Related articles
Dec 6, 2016 · Typically, that argument is the subject. If the clauses' subjects co-refer, SR appears in a value known as SS or “same-subject” marking. If they are dis- joint, SR appears as DS or “different-subject” ...

Yes, you are right in that I didn't think their difference very much or make a very clear distinction between them. They are different but I think they are some kind of a continuum.
I think my examples of bring and kill are quite clear chain verbs though.
I'll check you links. Thank you once again!

[Nachtuil]

In Japanese, there was a historical shift of [ɸ] (from earlier [p]) > [h] before [a e o] and [ɸ] > [ç] before [i], with [ɸ] being preserved only before the high back vowel. If I remember correctly, this only occurred initially, since intervocalic [ɸ] became [w].

The affrication of /t/ before high vowels has something to do with the tongue position, or so I've been told.

Thanks Shimobaatar!

[Zekoslav]

So my current project has palatal consonants as distinct phonemes, but I'm wondering if I should or need to have the be separate and distinct phonemes rather than just as allophones of non-palatal phonemes? For example, I have /nd͡ʒ/ (the /n/ is supposed to indicate that it is prenasalized) and is just a sound change from /ndʲ/.

I do have /t͡ʃ/ as a separate phoneme, but it might have been the result of /tʲ/ or /ti/.

I have to admit I don't quite understand what you want to say... I need more context. In general, a sound is synchronically a phoneme if it can contrast with other sounds in the same environment, regardless of what sound it comes from diachronically. If, when you replace /t͡ʃ/ or /nd͡ʒ/ with another sound, the meaning of the word changes, then /t͡ʃ/ and /nd͡ʒ/ are phonemes. If, however, when you replace /t͡ʃ/ or /nd͡ʒ/ with /tʲ/ and /ndʲ/, the meaning of the word doesn't change, then /t͡ʃ/ is the same phoneme as /tʲ/ and /nd͡ʒ/ the same phoneme as /ndʲ/, and how you transcribe them depends on your choice: just do whatever makes more sense in terms of the phonological system of your language as a whole.

Also, what you're referring to as palatals aren't usually called palatals in phonetic terminology. Sounds such as /tʲ/ are palatalized dentals and sounds such as /t͡ʃ/ are post-alveolars.

[yangfiretiger121]

I have three questions regarding the language now known as Skjajræfæ [ʃcɑ̽ˈɾʲæ.fʲæ].

The language's lenition process is blocked by <p, t, k, x, r, w, l>. Is <p, t, k> blocking lenition while <b, d, g> get lenited strange at all?

The language's retroflexes came about due to broad consonants, such as [ŋ], appearing before [ʏ(ː)] when it was variable [y(ː)~ø̞(ː)]. Is [t̪ˠ → t̪] or [t̪ˠ → ʈ] more likely? This affects the other dentialveolars, such as [z̪ˠ], as well.

The language currently has instrumental. nominative, and oblique cases, of which the instrumental is unmarked because of the default OSV word order. I pared that down from ins., nom., genitive, accusative, dative, locative, lative, and ablative cases. As instrumental is, technically, part of oblique in natlangs with an oblique case, is the exclusion of instrumental from oblique plausible, or did I consolidate the cases incorrectly?

[Ahzoh]

The language's lenition process is blocked by <p, t, k, x, r, w, l>. Is <p, t, k> blocking lenition while <b, d, g> get lenited strange at all?

This is basically what Spanish does intervocally; only the voiced stops get lenited.

---

How do I turn this set of vowels...

Code: Select all

i iː u uː
e eː o oː
æ æː ɑ ɑː

...into this set of vowels and diphthongs

Code: Select all

i iː    u uː
    ə əː
    a aː

aj aw əj əw

[Frislander]

How do I turn this set of vowels...

Code: Select all

i iː u uː
e eː o oː
æ æː ɑ ɑː

...into this set of vowels and diphthongs

Code: Select all

i iː    u uː
    ə əː
    a aː

aj aw əj əw

This is a bit of a strange question without knowing the rest of the system, but here goes. One suggestion:

Maybe have front vowels do some palatalisation before this begins?
Merge non-high vowels into schwa in unstressed syllables.
In stressed syllables break long vowels as follows: /iː eː uː oː/ > /əj aj əw aw/.
Raise /e o/ to /i u/, and merge the low vowels.

[Frislander]

The language's retroflexes came about due to broad consonants, such as [ŋ], appearing before [ʏ(ː)] when it was variable [y(ː)~ø̞(ː)]. Is [t̪ˠ → t̪] or [t̪ˠ → ʈ] more likely? This affects the other dentialveolars, such as [z̪ˠ], as well.

Having retroflexes appear before front rounded vowels only seems an odd conditioning environment to me, is there an articulatory motivation for this?

The language currently has instrumental. nominative, and oblique cases, of which the instrumental is unmarked because of the default OSV word order. I pared that down from ins., nom., genitive, accusative, dative, locative, lative, and ablative cases. As instrumental is, technically, part of oblique in natlangs with an oblique case, is the exclusion of instrumental from oblique plausible, or did I consolidate the cases incorrectly?

That three-case system is fine to me (isn't this found in a Khanty variety or two?). The real question here is how did you divide up the case roles between the three of them - if instrumental is common enough to be unmarked, what else is it doing and why are you calling it an instrumental to begin with?

[yangfiretiger121]

The language's lenition process is blocked by <p, t, k, x, r, w, l>. Is <p, t, k> blocking lenition while <b, d, g> get lenited strange at all?

This is basically what Spanish does intervocally; only the voiced stops get lenited.

Very true.

The language's retroflexes came about due to broad consonants, such as [ŋ], appearing before [ʏ(ː)] when it was variable [y(ː)~ø̞(ː)]. Is [t̪ˠ → t̪] or [t̪ˠ → ʈ] more likely? This affects the other dentialveolars, such as [z̪ˠ], as well

Having retroflexes appear before front rounded vowels only seems an odd conditioning environment to me, is there an articulatory motivation for this.

The conditioner is an elided [ə̯], which pulls the velar forward. For example, kjý, meaning dragon, is /kə̯yː/ but [ʈʏː]. As opposed to the velarization, perhaps, pulling the broad consonant back to a retroflex, which is more natural (cf. [t̪ˠ → ʈ]). I'm comfortable with [ɾˠ, sˠ → ɽ, ʂ] because some dialects of Scottish Gaelic have [ɾˠ → ɽ]. However, is a denti-alveolar-to-retroflex shift, such as [t̪ˠ → ʈ], plausible?

The language currently has instrumental. nominative, and oblique cases, of which the instrumental is unmarked because of the default OSV word order. I pared that down from ins., nom., genitive, accusative, dative, locative, lative, and ablative cases. As instrumental is, technically, part of oblique in natlangs with an oblique case, is the exclusion of instrumental from oblique plausible, or did I consolidate the cases incorrectly?

That three-case system is fine to me (isn't this found in a Khanty variety or two?). The real question here is how did you divide up the case roles between the three of them - if instrumental is common enough to be unmarked, what else is it doing and why are you calling it an instrumental to begin with?

The language is meant to be object-important. Thus, the instrumental case is unmarked. Originally, this case was restricted to its traditional use (cf. "killing by/with sword"). However, I may expand its use to be more like English's oblique (cf. "I saw it."). Conversely, the oblique, which is marked with nýx [ɲyːç], encompasses everything from genitive to motion. Finally, the nominative, which is either unmarked (no ins.) or marked with ḃjo [ʋʲə̯o̞] (ins. present), is just as you'd expect.

The Empire's motto is as follows: Nakjes won Skjajræ Noló [ˈŋɑ.ke̞ʃ ɣ˕o̞ŋ ˈʃcɑ̽.ɾʲæ ˈŋo̞.ɫ̪o̞ː]. It translates to "The Military and Empire of Skjajræ," Skjajræ being the solar deity. Do any or all of the nouns in that phrase need a particle?

[yangfiretiger121]

Are changes similar to {u y → ṵ} plausible?

[Creyeditor]

Are changes similar to {u y → ṵ} plausible?

Is this meant to be ""becoming creaky" without any condition context? Lacking any further context on the phonological system I would say "no!", but...
If you have a breathy vs. plain contrast this can morph into a plain vs. creaky constrast (plain -> creaky and breathy -> plain). If tones enter into this, it becomes even more complex.

[Nloki]

I'm currently researching on split-ergative alignments for my project and I've come up with a new idea, not sure if naturalistic enough though. It would show animacy-based split-ergativity on nouns but pure ergativity on verbs (the language has polypersonal agreement).

Noun animacy-based split-ergative would work this way:
•Nominative: animate subjects and agents and inanimate subjects.
•Accusative: animate patients.
•Ergative: inanimate agents.
Whereas polypersonal agreement would be fully ergative.

The problem with this idea is how inconsistent it seems. I mean, no explicit core arguments on a transitive sentence would make the language purely ergative-absolutive, and the opposite would turn it into half-split-ergative...

The major problem is that I hate nominative-accusative alignments or any sort of split-ergativity applying such alignment to nouns, and I already tried reverting the noun alignment paradigm thus:
•Absolutive: animate subjects and inanimate subjects and patients.
•Ergative: agents.
•Accusative: animate patients.
That last thing males even much lesser sense!

So, are there any other options left?

[yangfiretiger121]

Are changes similar to {u y → ṵ} plausible?

Is this meant to be ""becoming creaky" without any condition context? Lacking any further context on the phonological system I would say "no!", but...
If you have a breathy vs. plain contrast this can morph into a plain vs. creaky contrast (plain -> creaky and breathy -> plain). If tones enter into this, it becomes even more complex.

I'm trying to pare two ten vowel systems (eleven including the semivowel /i/) into a smaller system and was thinking about having merged vowels be laryngeal/creaky. But, it seems like that'd be unlikely from what you just said. The final vowel system from this proposal is [ɑ], [æ̰] (merger of [a, ɛ, ɪ]), [e], [ i], [o̰] (merger of [o, ɔ, ʊ]), [ṵ] (merger of [u, y]).

[Frislander]

I'm currently researching on split-ergative alignments for my project and I've come up with a new idea, not sure if naturalistic enough though. It would show animacy-based split-ergativity on nouns but pure ergativity on verbs (the language has polypersonal agreement).

Noun animacy-based split-ergative would work this way:
•Nominative: animate subjects and agents and inanimate subjects.
•Accusative: animate patients.
•Ergative: inanimate agents.
Whereas polypersonal agreement would be fully ergative.

The problem with this idea is how inconsistent it seems. I mean, no explicit core arguments on a transitive sentence would make the language purely ergative-absolutive, and the opposite would turn it into half-split-ergative...

The major problem is that I hate nominative-accusative alignments or any sort of split-ergativity applying such alignment to nouns, and I already tried reverting the noun alignment paradigm thus:
•Absolutive: animate subjects and inanimate subjects and patients.
•Ergative: agents.
•Accusative: animate patients.
That last thing males even much lesser sense!

So, are there any other options left?

Well what you've ended up with there is a tripartite split in animates and an ergative split in inanimates, which means by implication that your verbal agreement has to be either tripartite as well or nominative - ergative verbal person marking is very rare and pretty much always correlated with purely ergative nominal case marking (e.g. Basque and Northwest Caucasian). There's a heirarchy with these things unfortunately, with the correlation being animate things (or more precisely, more closely empathised things, so also pronouns and verbal person marking more than nouns) tending towards accusative systems and less-empathised with things (i.e. inanimate nouns) preferring ergative systems, with tripartite systems often falling between the two.

But regardless, I don't see the issue here - there's nothing wrong with only parts of an alignment split being evident at a time. It's just another way in which natural languages are more complicated than they strictly need to be.

[yangfiretiger121]

Do any natlangs have two diphthongs that mirror each other somehow? For example, the protolanguage has [æo̯, oæ̯] after the vowel consolidation above (creaky voice excluded).

[sangi39]

Do any natlangs have two diphthongs that mirror each other somehow? For example, the protolanguage has [æo̯, oæ̯] after the vowel consolidation above (creaky voice excluded).

Old English, I think, had diphthongs that were the same height from beginning to end.

[brblues]

I'm currently researching on split-ergative alignments for my project and I've come up with a new idea, not sure if naturalistic enough though. It would show animacy-based split-ergativity on nouns but pure ergativity on verbs (the language has polypersonal agreement).

Noun animacy-based split-ergative would work this way:
•Nominative: animate subjects and agents and inanimate subjects.
•Accusative: animate patients.
•Ergative: inanimate agents.
Whereas polypersonal agreement would be fully ergative.

The problem with this idea is how inconsistent it seems. I mean, no explicit core arguments on a transitive sentence would make the language purely ergative-absolutive, and the opposite would turn it into half-split-ergative...

I've got a similar split, minus the polypersonal agreement, in a daughterlang of the proto-lang I'm working on now - possibly I might even have it in several ones, if I get that far, in different variations. Because I worked from the proto-lang, I also have a "backstory" for the development of the split.

In the proto-lang, only animate nouns could act as agents; in order to form a sentence with an inanimate agent, the inanimate noun is put into the instrumental and a dummy agent ("somebody") is used:

ɣis.te-du ki.ku sig-hɛ sot-mɛ ɣuɣ.za.lig pɛlma-mɛ
APPLE-INSTR DUMMY.AGENT 1PL.EXC-GEN.ALIEN HOUSE-LOC WINDOW BREAK-PFV


"Somebody broke the window of (in) our house with an apple" => "An apple broke the window of our house".

Later on, the instrumental is re-analysed as ergative in such clauses, and the dummy agent is fused with the following noun (phrase) as an accusative prefix; the fusing and re-analysing of what was originally /kiku/ is helped by sound changes shrinking it further and further, until the prefix is only /k/.

After some sound changes and "analogizations", the above sentence would read as follows in one of the daughterlang:

ʃɪɣ sot.mə ɣɪs.te-d k-ɣəɣ.za.lɪg pəlma-m
1PL.EXC.GEN.ALIEN HOUSE-LOC APPLE-ERG ACC-WINDOW BREAK-PFV[/size=85]

This would result in the following split:

NOM: animate and inanimate subjects, animate and inanimate objects if the agent is inanimate, animate agents
ACC: objects if the agent is inanimate
ERG: inanimate agents

However, at least for the primary daughterlang, I want to generalize and analogize it as follows:

NOM: animate and inanimate subjects, animate agents
ACC: objects
ERG: inanimate agents

There may be variations amongst other daughterlangs, also with regards to whether the whole noun phrase is prefixed, or only the noun, or all constituents of the noun phrase.

[Reyzadren]

Do any natlangs have two diphthongs that mirror each other somehow? For example, the protolanguage has [æo̯, oæ̯] after the vowel consolidation above (creaky voice excluded).

That other natlang that I speak has /ai/ /ia/, /au/ /ua/ and /iu/ /ui/, if this is what you are asking.

[Creyeditor]

Are changes similar to {u y → ṵ} plausible?

Is this meant to be ""becoming creaky" without any condition context? Lacking any further context on the phonological system I would say "no!", but...
If you have a breathy vs. plain contrast this can morph into a plain vs. creaky contrast (plain -> creaky and breathy -> plain). If tones enter into this, it becomes even more complex.

I'm trying to pare two ten vowel systems (eleven including the semivowel /i/) into a smaller system and was thinking about having merged vowels be laryngeal/creaky. But, it seems like that'd be unlikely from what you just said. The final vowel system from this proposal is [ɑ], [æ̰] (merger of [a, ɛ, ɪ]), [e], [ i], [o̰] (merger of [o, ɔ, ʊ]), [ṵ] (merger of [u, y]).

Okay, here is a way to include creaky voice naturalistically into your system. Phonation contrasts are usually very symetric, so it does not really help you to reduce the number of vowels.
I think you might get there if you do something about retracted tongue root. From an articulatory point of view a retracted tongue root could lead to pharyngealization (or someting similar) and this could in turn be further developed into a creaky phonation. So my idea would be:

We start with
/ɑ, a, ɛ, ɪ, e, i, o, ɔ, ʊ, u, y/ and I assume that /ɑ/ has a retracted tongue root, but /a/ does not.
All vowels with a retracted tongue root become pharyngealized instead.
/ɑ, ɛ, ɪ, ɔ, ʊ/ → /aˤ, eˤ, iˤ, oˤ, uˤ/
This gives you a system that is almost symetric and involves phonemic
/aˤ, a, eˤ, iˤ, e, i, o, oˤ, uˤ, u, y/
Next, pharyngealized vowels become creaky voiced instead.
/aˤ, eˤ, iˤ, oˤ, uˤ/ → /a̰, ḛ, ḭ, o̰, ṵ/
This gives you a sytsme with a nice symetric phonation contrast and /y/ as a nice addition.
/a̰, a, ḛ, ḭ, e, i, o, o̰, ṵ, u, y/

This does not seem to solve your problem yet. If you want to reduce your vowel system, I think you should get rid of the following first, i.e. merge these with other vowels: /y/, high lax vowels, and one of the low vowels.
Here are a few ideas:
/y/ could merge either with /u/ or /i/.
High lax /ɪ, ʊ/ could either merge with the other high vowels /i/ and /u/ or with the tense mid vowels /e, o/.
The low vowels could either merge into one low vowel or /a/ could merge with /ɛ/ or /ɑ/ could merge with /ɔ/.

So one specific implementation of this.
Starting with the same inventory again:
/ɑ, a, ɛ, ɪ, e, i, o, ɔ, ʊ, u, y/
Merge /y/ and /i/ into /i/, this gives a slightly smaller system
/ɑ, a, ɛ, ɪ, e, i, o, ɔ, ʊ, u/
Then merge /ɪ/ and /e/ into /e/. Also merge /ʊ/ and /o/ to /o/.
/ɑ, a, ɛ, e, i, o, ɔ, u/
In the next step, we merge /ɑ/ and /ɔ/ into /ɔ/.
/a, ɛ, e, i, o, ɔ, u/
Et voila. a nice and tidy, small-ish vowel system.

[yangfiretiger121]

Are changes similar to {u y → ṵ} plausible?

Is this meant to be ""becoming creaky" without any condition context? Lacking any further context on the phonological system I would say "no!", but...
If you have a breathy vs. plain contrast this can morph into a plain vs. creaky contrast (plain -> creaky and breathy -> plain). If tones enter into this, it becomes even more complex.

I'm trying to pare two ten vowel systems (eleven including the semivowel /i/) into a smaller system and was thinking about having merged vowels be laryngeal/creaky. But, it seems like that'd be unlikely from what you just said. The final vowel system from this proposal is [ɑ], [æ̰] (merger of [a, ɛ, ɪ]), [e], [ i], [o̰] (merger of [o, ɔ, ʊ]), [ṵ] (merger of [u, y]).

Okay, here is a way to include creaky voice naturalistically into your system. Phonation contrasts are usually very symetric, so it does not really help you to reduce the number of vowels.
I think you might get there if you do something about retracted tongue root. From an articulatory point of view a retracted tongue root could lead to pharyngealization (or someting similar) and this could in turn be further developed into a creaky phonation. So my idea would be:

We start with
/ɑ, a, ɛ, ɪ, e, i, o, ɔ, ʊ, u, y/ and I assume that /ɑ/ has a retracted tongue root, but /a/ does not.
All vowels with a retracted tongue root become pharyngealized instead.
/ɑ, ɛ, ɪ, ɔ, ʊ/ → /aˤ, eˤ, iˤ, oˤ, uˤ/
This gives you a system that is almost symmetric and involves phonemic
/aˤ, a, eˤ, iˤ, e, i, o, oˤ, uˤ, u, y/
Next, pharyngealized vowels become creaky voiced instead.
/aˤ, eˤ, iˤ, oˤ, uˤ/ → /a̰, ḛ, ḭ, o̰, ṵ/
This gives you a system with a nice symmetric phonation contrast and /y/ as a nice addition.
/a̰, a, ḛ, ḭ, e, i, o, o̰, ṵ, u, y/

This does not seem to solve your problem yet. If you want to reduce your vowel system, I think you should get rid of the following first, i.e. merge these with other vowels: /y/, high lax vowels, and one of the low vowels.
Here are a few ideas:
/y/ could merge either with /u/ or /i/.
High lax /ɪ, ʊ/ could either merge with the other high vowels /i/ and /u/ or with the tense mid vowels /e, o/.
The low vowels could either merge into one low vowel or /a/ could merge with /ɛ/ or /ɑ/ could merge with /ɔ/.

So one specific implementation of this.
Starting with the same inventory again:
/ɑ, a, ɛ, ɪ, e, i, o, ɔ, ʊ, u, y/
Merge /y/ and /i/ into /i/, this gives a slightly smaller system
/ɑ, a, ɛ, ɪ, e, i, o, ɔ, ʊ, u/
Then merge /ɪ/ and /e/ into /e/. Also merge /ʊ/ and /o/ to /o/.
/ɑ, a, ɛ, e, i, o, ɔ, u/
In the next step, we merge /ɑ/ and /ɔ/ into /ɔ/.
/a, ɛ, e, i, o, ɔ, u/
Et voila. a nice and tidy, small-ish vowel system.

I was going for the RTR idea, actually. But, the language is meant to sound a bit strange to our ears because it's spoken in a fictional galaxy. I'll take a bigger vowel system with creaky voice in Proto-Skaran. Thus, are [a, a̰ → ɑ, æ̰] plausible changes? Notice, that's the system's only asymmetry.

[Creyeditor]

Well, if you already have creaky voice, [a, a̰ → ɑ, æ̰] is plausible.