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

[Arayaz]

I’m afraid my phonology is not super natural and I’ve done almost no proto-lang work, so I need some kind of historical justification for my weird phonology.
Specifically, I have labialized consonants, but only on voiceless consonants that aren’t fricatives, and all labialized nasals & approximate are unvoiced.

Welcome to the board!

Can you show us your phonology?

I had an idea that labialized consonants could derive from rounded vowels, thus justifying my five vowel system in the face of tons of consonants, although I can change that if it would conflict with any other historical justifications.

I don't understand why that would need justification.

[VaptuantaDoi]

Specifically, I have labialized consonants, but only on voiceless consonants that aren’t fricatives, and all labialized nasals & approximate are unvoiced.

That is fairly unusual, especially having voiceless labialised nasals without voiced counterparts (for that matter, I don't know of any languages where voiceless labialised nasals are phonemic at all). The only suggestion I can think of is something along the lines of e.g. *ŋw → *ŋv → *ŋf → ŋ̊ʷ, which would require unconditional devoicing of /v/.

I had an idea that labialized consonants could derive from rounded vowels, thus justifying my five vowel system in the face of tons of consonants, although I can change that if it would conflict with any other historical justifications.

There's no particular correlation between vowel and consonant inventory size. Some languages like Karajá have a small consonant inventory and large vowel inventory, others like Ubykh have a huge consonant inventory and only two vowels. Having a five-vowel system is fine with literally any consonant inventory.

[thethief3]

I believe its a phonemic universal that a voiceless nasal must have a voiced counterpart.

[TBPO]

I believe its a phonemic universal that a voiceless nasal must have a voiced counterpart.

Yes, but if there are labialised voiceless nasal and normal voiced nasal, the voiceless have voiced counterpart, but voiceless is also labialised.

[Knox Adjacent]

I wouldn't call it stable, but I could believe voiceless labialized nasals as products of cluster reduction, the same process at a first stage producing geminate nasals and geminates being prone to devoicing before then shortening. You could have them for a while. Being not impossible, I suggest we move on.

[TBPO]

I posted Proto-Ngwonlyok phonology in my scratchpad. Is it naturalistic, beside complete lack of labials and having instead 2 labialised articulations?

[Knox Adjacent]

I'm undecided between my current Project Knox scheme to always add an epenthetic ŋ between vowels or to simply progressively delete later vowels in clusters arising with a further variant that makes an exception for the gender prefixes for requiring an underlying form.

1 *ralu-impa > ralu-ŋimpa and *ju-anpak > ju-ŋanpak
2 *ralu-impa > ralu-mpa, and > *ju-anpak > ju-npak
3 *ralu-impa > ralu-mpa, and *ju-anpak > ju-ŋanpak

Brief survey.

[Arayaz]

I'm undecided between my current Project Knox scheme to always add an epenthetic ŋ between vowels or to simply progressively delete later vowels in clusters arising with a further variant that makes an exception for the gender prefixes for requiring an underlying form.

1 *ralu-impa > ralu-ŋimpa and *ju-anpak > ju-ŋanpak
2 *ralu-impa > ralu-mpa, and > *ju-anpak > ju-npak
3 *ralu-impa > ralu-mpa, and *ju-anpak > ju-ŋanpak

Brief survey.

I'm undecided between 2 and 1. I think 2 is my favorite.

[Creyeditor]

2 is my choice. Could provide interesting inspiration for diachronics.

[VaptuantaDoi]

Well I like 3 I'm afraid.

[Ahzoh]

Would it make sense to contrast an emotional causative from a non-emotional one?

[Creyeditor]

Please elaborate. Sounds like a potentially interesting idea. Would it mean to cause emotions (e.g. to make s.o. cry) or emotions causing stuff (e.g. my sadness made him leave) or causing stuff whike being emotional (e.g. I angrily made him stir the pot)?

[Ahzoh]

Please elaborate. Sounds like a potentially interesting idea. Would it mean to cause emotions (e.g. to make s.o. cry) or emotions causing stuff (e.g. my sadness made him leave) or causing stuff whike being emotional (e.g. I angrily made him stir the pot)?

emotion-based causation.

e.g. go > send vs. drive away

kill > make kill vs. drive to kill
eat > feed vs. entice (with food)

[Creyeditor]

So it's causing stuff while being emotional. Sounds great, go for it.

[Ahzoh]

I am wondering if it's sensible for jaCC-/waCC- > iCC-/uCC-

e.g. a verb has the stem yatat- (realis stem) but the imperative stem is itt-a- (< yatt-a-)

likewise yanad- (realis stem) has ind-a- (imperative stem) and wasiḫ- has usḫ-a-

There is a possible wrench in this in that stressed, initial high-vowels break into glides, so that uś-am "fire" becomes waś-am

[Khemehekis]

Please elaborate. Sounds like a potentially interesting idea. Would it mean to cause emotions (e.g. to make s.o. cry) or emotions causing stuff (e.g. my sadness made him leave) or causing stuff whike being emotional (e.g. I angrily made him stir the pot)?

At first I thought "whike" was baby talk for "like", as if you were imitating Red Skelton's Mean Widdle Kid pouting.

It took me a while to realize that "whike" was a miskey for "while".

[Creyeditor]

Not enough sleep. Sorry for the recent rise in typos.

[Keenir]

Not enough sleep. Sorry for the recent rise in typos.

accidents happen; no worries