The CBB

Creyeditor wrote: ↑20 Jun 2024 09:03 Maybe a difference in perdspective? "I (subjectively) doubt that ..." vs. "It is (objectively) uncertain if". This could be some kind of evidentiality-related distinction then.

Perhaps that was it! Any other guesses?

To rephrase Crey's distinction I think: what springs to mind to me is that a "dubitative" sounds like a pragmatic device, like a concessive. A sort of "For what it's worth, I've been told that... (but don't hold me to it)" function. Whereas "uncertain" sounds more like a description of the external probability of something: "this may or may not be the case". What I mean is that the former would be used for different conversational reasons - a way of putting something on the table without personally committing to it and indeed expressing skepticism - while the latter is used in a more indicative, fact-describing way.

But I've no idea if you intended that.

OK then! Thanks. I believe I got the information I want to resolve this.

Back again to ask for a good diacritic to romanize /ɰ/? Simple underdots, underlines and undertildes are already in use.

Knox Adjacent wrote: ↑23 Jun 2024 04:16 Back again to ask for a good diacritic to romanize /ɰ/? Simple underdots, underlines and undertildes are already in use.

What do you want the base character to be?

Knox Adjacent wrote: ↑23 Jun 2024 04:16 Back again to ask for a good diacritic to romanize /ɰ/? Simple underdots, underlines and undertildes are already in use.

ogonek

VaptuantaDoi wrote: ↑23 Jun 2024 04:29

Knox Adjacent wrote: ↑23 Jun 2024 04:16 Back again to ask for a good diacritic to romanize /ɰ/? Simple underdots, underlines and undertildes are already in use.

What do you want the base character to be?

Oh, yeah, a w.

All I can suggest is ŵ or ẅ.

w̧ would be my input. Or w̗ or w̖.

I have a humanoid but non-human species. I'm wondering if /a ɶ ɑ/ would be too similar to each other? And if so would changing /a/ to /æ/ help much or would it be better to just reduce/combine them all?

I personally think it's fine, but it would be good to see the rest of the vowel phonology.

Visions1 wrote: ↑25 Jun 2024 01:39 I personally think it's fine, but it would be good to see the rest of the vowel phonology.

Aside from the three low vowels, it's similar to Finnish:
/i y u/
/e ø o/
/a ɶ ɑ/

I feel like it might be a little TOO regular, but I don't think it particularly COULDN'T happen just that it might be a little unstable and collapse into a different vowel system relatively quickly.

Do you also have vowel harmony or other related processes? If something that created the vowel system is still nascent, it could hold on.

I think you could also get around the regularity by encoding allophony while keeping these as the baseline.

LinguistCat wrote: ↑25 Jun 2024 00:13 I have a humanoid but non-human species. I'm wondering if /a ɶ ɑ/ would be too similar to each other? And if so would changing /a/ to /æ/ help much or would it be better to just reduce/combine them all?

With a system like /a ɶ ɑ/ you'd expect /a/ to pattern like (and/or be) a front vowel. The IPA says "/a/" is a front vowel, but normal usage is to have /a/ central and /æ/ front. But that doesn't really matter.

As long as you don't have /œ/ as well, then having /ɶ/* is fine. LinguistCat's suggestion looks fairly stable (very regular vowel systems are not uncommon). Without something like /ø/ above it, /ɶ/ would tend to raise to /œ/.


*for anyone whose browsers show those as the same character, the first is /œ/ and the second /Œ/.

Idea: You could keep what you have for phonemic functions, while shifting up their actual phonetic realization.

Then again, they're non-human, so I dunno if this makes too big a difference.

Thanks everyone. I think I was just nervous because I tend to use smaller vowel systems.

I'm researching Vulcan, partially as inspiration and partially to make sure I don't unintentionally rip off another conlang. It's probably the only media based conlang I like aesthetically.


I noticed that Vulcan uses lots of apostrophes in its words, and I am trying to figure out what they are for? Are they glottal stops or ejectives? Or just there to make it look more alien?

LinguoFranco wrote: ↑26 Jun 2024 22:40 I'm researching Vulcan, partially as inspiration and partially to make sure I don't unintentionally rip off another conlang. It's probably the only media based conlang I like aesthetically.


I noticed that Vulcan uses lots of apostrophes in its words, and I am trying to figure out what they are for? Are they glottal stops or ejectives? Or just there to make it look more alien?

You mean like in T'Pau? My guess is a schwa.

My guess is to make it look alien.

LinguistCat wrote: ↑25 Jun 2024 05:43

Visions1 wrote: ↑25 Jun 2024 01:39 I personally think it's fine, but it would be good to see the rest of the vowel phonology.

Aside from the three low vowels, it's similar to Finnish:
/i y u/
/e ø o/
/a ɶ ɑ/

I feel like it might be a little TOO regular, but I don't think it particularly COULDN'T happen just that it might be a little unstable and collapse into a different vowel system relatively quickly.

I want to round ɑ in this inventory personally...