Yay or Nay?

[cedh]

@Ahzoh

how about largely keeping the original system but modify the /e/ to something else and change the length of the -i, -a and -u endings?

I can't really do anything to the /e/ because as I have it's basically like /n/ is the plural marker in basic state while /:/ is the plural marker in construct state and the oblique endings are basically the nominative endings plus [+raised]. The declension system is pretty featural.

You could say that the masculine /e/-endings originally have /a/ instead (like the feminine). Then, you have two options:

a) If there are several prominent masculine nouns which have the right phonological shape for the sound change *a > e, and no (or very few) feminine nouns have it, the /e/-endings could be analogy-based. Since the development of a triconsonantal root system requires lots of analogy anyway, I'd say this would be plausible enough.

b) Maybe the masculine endings originally did not contain just /a/, but a diphthong /ai/ that became /e/ later on? Or the /i/ was added due to analogy somehow?

[Ahzoh]

Replace lateral fricatives with retroflex series?

Current:
uǧṭaku /uɣtʼɒku/ "camel"
Aḳālu /ɒkʼɒːlu/ "Akalu"
Araś-Īzun /ɒrɒɬ iːzun/ "Vessel of the Gods"
Śād Warḫāla /ɬɒːd wɒrxɒːlɒ/ "Vrkhazhian

/m n ŋ/<m n ñ>
/p pʼ b t tʼ d k kʼ g/<p ṗ b t ṭ d k ḳ g>
/s (t)sʼ z ɬ (t)ɬʼ x ɣ/<s ṣ z ś ṣ́ ḫ ǧ>
/w r l j/< w r l y>

New:
uǧṯ̣aku /uɣʈʼɒku/ "camel"
Aḳālu /ɒkʼɒːlu/ "Akalu"
Araš-Īžun /ɒrɒʂ iːʐun/ "Vessel of the Gods"
Šād Warḫāža /ʂɒːd wɒrxɒːʐɒ/ "Vrkhazhian"

/m n ŋ/<m n ñ>
/p pʼ b t tʼ d ʈ ʈʼ ɖ k kʼ g/<p ṗ b t ṭ d ṯ ṯ̣ ḏ k ḳ g>
/s (t)sʼ z ʂ (ʈ)ʂʼ ʐ x ɣ/<s ṣ z š ṣ̌ ž ḫ ǧ>
/w r l j/< w r l y>

[zyma]

I vote "nay", personally.

[Ahzoh]

I vote "nay", personally.

It's certainly causing unwanted progressive r-colouring of alveolar consonants in words

[Creyeditor]

Replace lateral fricatives with retroflex series?

I vote nay, too. I really like how your current consonant inventory.

[felipesnark]

For my Iberian West Germanic/Anglian project, should /k/ remain <k> or be spelled <c> before /a o u/ and <qu> before /e i/ in keeping with what's common with the Romance languages in the Iberian peninsula (Spanish and Galician being top inspirations)?

Consonants

Stops: /p t k b d g/ <p t k b d g>
Affricates: /tʃ/ <ch>
Nasals: /m n ɲ/ <m n ñ/
Fricatives / f v s θ ʃ/ <f v s z x>
Liquids: /ɾ r l/ <r r/rr l>
Glides: /j w/ <y/i w/u>
Glottal: /h/ <h>

/ɾ r/ only contrast medially, where the former is <r> and the latter is <rr>.
<y w> are used word initially and word finally.

Vowels

/a e i o u/ <a e i o u>

[Creyeditor]

I would say yeay for changing it.

[zyma]

For my Iberian West Germanic/Anglian project, should /k/ remain <k> or be spelled <c> before /a o u/ and <qu> before /e i/ in keeping with what's common with the Romance languages in the Iberian peninsula (Spanish and Galician being top inspirations)?

A few questions, for context: Has this language historically palatalized /k/ before front vowels? If you were to switch to <ca co cu qui que> /ka ko ku ki ke/, what would <ci ce> represent?

I think that I would personally lean towards keeping /k/ <k>, as in Basque. However, if your goal is to make the language look as much like Spanish/Galician as possible, then I'd recommend going with <ca co cu qui que> /ka ko ku ki ke/ (and probably getting rid of <w> as well).

[felipesnark]

For my Iberian West Germanic/Anglian project, should /k/ remain <k> or be spelled <c> before /a o u/ and <qu> before /e i/ in keeping with what's common with the Romance languages in the Iberian peninsula (Spanish and Galician being top inspirations)?

A few questions, for context: Has this language historically palatalized /k/ before front vowels? If you were to switch to <ca co cu qui que> /ka ko ku ki ke/, what would <ci ce> represent?

I think that I would personally lean towards keeping /k/ <k>, as in Basque. However, if your goal is to make the language look as much like Spanish/Galician as possible, then I'd recommend going with <ca co cu qui que> /ka ko ku ki ke/ (and probably getting rid of <w> as well).

Yes, this language has historically palatalized /k/ before front vowels. If I made the switch, I probably wouldn't use <ce ci>. Historically, some of those <ce ci> would be /t͡ʃe t͡ʃi/ while newer ones would be /θe θi/ (by way of /t͡se t͡si/) if that makes sense. Of course, I could respell one of those.

I don't feel like the language has to look as much like Spanish/Galician as possible; it can have some of its own flavor despite their strong influences.

[zyma]

Yes, this language has historically palatalized /k/ before front vowels. If I made the switch, I probably wouldn't use <ce ci>. Historically, some of those <ce ci> would be /t͡ʃe t͡ʃi/ while newer ones would be /θe θi/ (by way of /t͡se t͡si/) if that makes sense. Of course, I could respell one of those.

I don't feel like the language has to look as much like Spanish/Galician as possible; it can have some of its own flavor despite their strong influences.

Thanks for the clarification! I figured that might be the case, since you said that the language is Anglian. You could do something akin to how English generally uses <c> for /k/ before <a o u>, <c> for /s/ before <i e y> (due to French influence, from what I understand), and <ch> for the outcome of historically palatalized /k/. However, my personal preference here would still be to keep /k/ <k>.

[felipesnark]

Yes, this language has historically palatalized /k/ before front vowels. If I made the switch, I probably wouldn't use <ce ci>. Historically, some of those <ce ci> would be /t͡ʃe t͡ʃi/ while newer ones would be /θe θi/ (by way of /t͡se t͡si/) if that makes sense. Of course, I could respell one of those.

I don't feel like the language has to look as much like Spanish/Galician as possible; it can have some of its own flavor despite their strong influences.

Thanks for the clarification! I figured that might be the case, since you said that the language is Anglian. You could do something akin to how English generally uses <c> for /k/ before <a o u>, <c> for /s/ before <i e y> (due to French influence, from what I understand), and <ch> for the outcome of historically palatalized /k/. However, my personal preference here would still be to keep /k/ <k>.

Thanks. I am partial to using <k> myself. Your mention of Basque gave me the idea of potentially using <tx> for /t͡ʃ/ since <x> is already /ʃ/...

[felipesnark]

Thanks for the feedback. I think I’ll stick with <k>.

So, given:

Consonants

Stops: /p t k b d g/ <p t k b d g>
Affricates: /tʃ/ <ch>
Nasals: /m n ɲ/ <m n ñ/
Fricatives / f v s θ ʃ/ <f v s z x>
Liquids: /ɾ r l/ <r r/rr l>
Glides: /j w/ <y/i w/u>
Glottal: /h/ <h>

/ɾ r/ only contrast medially, where the former is <r> and the latter is <rr>.
<y w> are used word initially and word finally.

Vowels

/a e i o u/ <a e i o u>


Should /tʃ/ be <c>, <ch>, or <tx>?

[Khemehekis]

I vote for TX! Like Txabao!

[All4Ɇn]

I vote for TX! Like Txabao!

[zyma]

Should /tʃ/ be <c>, <ch>, or <tx>?

I think I'd go with <ch>, personally, but I don't mind <tx>.

[felipesnark]

Should /tʃ/ be <c>, <ch>, or <tx>?

I think I'd go with <ch>, personally, but I don't mind <tx>.

I think I'm partial to <ch>, but Basque got me thinking about <tx> especially since I'm already using <x> for /ʃ/.

[ixals]

I've been working on my not-so-serious CV tonal germlang again and I have three scripts for it: tonal, historical and Chinese characters because why not. The Chinese characters are a bit of a problem when it comes to the personal pronouns. This is what I currently have:

俉/吾 /i˩˥ - me˩˥/ - 1SG
俄/我 /ve˥˩ - ũ˥˩/ - 1PL
儞/爾 /ðu˩˥ - ðe˩˥/ - 2SG
㑚/那 /ʒe˥˩ - ḭ/ - 2PL
伊/尹 /θa˩˥ - θã˩˥/ - 3SG.M
他/也 /θo˩˥ - θḛ˩˥/ - 3SG.F
倛/其 /θe˩˥ - θẽ˩˥/ - 3PL

The one with the 亻radical is the nominative, the one without the oblique. I like that alternation because it is symmetrical but it repurposes some characters and I'm generally unsure/unhappy about some characters I've chosen. Namely the second and third person pronouns. I try to base my choices off of Classical Chinese but a lot of pronouns can be used for many different cases. The second plural uses 㑚 which I took from the Wu dialect, but 儞/爾 look fancier so using that as a plural pronoun and therefore as the polite second person singular feels more fitting. The problem with the third person pronouns for me is that they all feel so arbitrary. I want to do something else but I don't know what. So:

Switch second person singular and plural, yay or nay?
Change the third person pronouns, yay or nay? And if yay, to what?

I guess it requires some Chinese knowledge, so Daddy Des, where u at?

[WeepingElf]

Without knowing your sound developments, there is no way telling.

[ixals]

Do the sound developments matter? It's about whether the characters are good choices to represent the meaning of the word. Or do I misunderstand your question?

[All4Ɇn]

Switch second person singular and plural, yay or nay?
Change the third person pronouns, yay or nay? And if yay, to what?

I really like the second person ones but agree with you with the third person ones. Maybe you could change them to characters relating to men and women to stand in for the masculine/feminine gender split in the singular?