The CBB Makes a conlang

[Kijetesantakalu042]

Maybe people could suggest example words from which we could derive phonotactics and maybe some phonetic rules.

hant

[ɶʙ ɞʛ]

I'd suggest all consonant clusters should max out at 4, with restrictions following sonority hierarchy, so that *βɢtm, *θkʃʁ, *ʃkth̪͆ would be allowed but *qʃk and *h̪͆ɴɬq wouldn't.

Maybe if a cluster of more than 4 or one that violates sonority hierarchy is created, one or more of the consonants becomes syllabic to fix the violation, so *qʃk > *qʃ̩k and *h̪͆ɴɬq > *h̪͆ɴ̩ɬ.q. If that isn't sufficient, an epenthetic vowel should appear somewhere.

[TBPO]

How it will look like?

Will it be polisynthetic?
teqkihaotTasiva rutqsenaNqto.

Or maybe isolating?
ova i eqta Tol ami ahaf no atak.

It's crucial when making phonotactics and generally conlang.

(T is dental fricative, N is uvular nasal)

[YoungConlanger]

How it will look like?

Will it be polisynthetic?
teqkihaotTasiva rutqsenaNqto.

Or maybe isolating?
ova i eqta Tol ami ahaf no atak.

It's crucial when making phonotactics and generally conlang.

I think it can be an agglutinative language.

[Arayaz]

I went ahead and put what we have on a spreadsheet. I also fleshed out a phonological history from the ideas others have put forward:

k̟ k̠ g̟ g̠ → k q dʒ ɢ
k → tʃ before i(ː)
s̠ → ɬ except before i(ː)
a aː i iː u uː → ə a ɨ i o ɨ
p b d dʒ ɢ → f β ð ʒ ɢ~ʁ
s̠ → ʃ
ə → ∅ when unstressed
ɨ → ə
r ŋ̠ → ʁ ɴ
ð ʒ → θ ʃ except intervocalically
x̠ → h̪͆
C[non-stop] → [syllabic] when in a cluster of 5+ consonants, or a cluster violating the sonority hierarchy

[Arayaz]

Why don't we suggest some example proto-forms and see what arises? From there we could get ideas about our grammar and lexicon.

*itag̟uː becomes ətʃə, or ətəʒə depending how the stress is.
*araːis̠ becomes ʁaəɬ, or əʁaəɬ depending how the stress is.
*paŋ̠x̠iː becomes fɴ̩h̪͆i, or fəɴh̪͆i depending how the stress is.

There is the possibility, I notice, of a /tʃ/ vs. /t͡ʃ/ contrast.

[YoungConlanger]

I went ahead and put what we have on a spreadsheet. I also fleshed out a phonological history from the ideas others have put forward...

Can I suggest a sound change?
o → u after q ɢ ʁ ɴ h̪͆ or other vowels

P.S. Edit: yes, this is exactly the same thing I've sugeested

[Arayaz]

Added.

[Kijetesantakalu042]

I wish I wasn't too scared to add in the dental plosive when we were still adding sounds.

[Omzinesý]

So, what now?

[WizardOfWar]

Next is whatever you want

[TBPO]

I suggest an analytic but very fusional language, with lots of roots differing only with inflectional things (number, gender/class, tense, agreement etc).

[Kijetesantakalu042]

I suggest an analytic but very fusional language, with lots of roots differing only with inflectional things (number, gender/class, tense, agreement etc).

Those are opposite ideas

[thethief3]

Latin can only be considered an analytic language compared to the other languages in the world it's just that english and other european languages are even more analytic than it.

[HolyHandGrenade!]

Latin can only be considered an analytic language compared to the other languages in the world it's just that english and other european languages are even more analytic than it.

I’m not so sure about that. It’s not highly agglutinative, but that doesn’t mean it’s an analytic language.

[Omzinesý]

I suggest an analytic but very fusional language, with lots of roots differing only with inflectional things (number, gender/class, tense, agreement etc).

What do you mean exactly?
Can you give examples?

[thethief3]

Dunno but a lot of more synthetic languages use inflection to encode things english would encode with different roots.

[TBPO]

I suggest an analytic but very fusional language, with lots of roots differing only with inflectional things (number, gender/class, tense, agreement etc).

What do you mean exactly?
Can you give examples?

For example, horse in nominative singular can be "evehe nu" HORSE.NOM NOM.ANI.SG and in accusative plural can be "rael si" HORSE.OBL ACC.ANI.PL (here OBL is any case except nominative)

[HolyHandGrenade!]

I’m kinda bored with nominatives and stuff. Let’s make it ergative-absolutive.

[_Just_A_Sketch]

I’m kinda bored with nominatives and stuff. Let’s make it ergative-absolutive.

Yes, ergative-absolutive all the way! (Unless anyone wants to do something more unusual?)