The CBB

Discuss constructed languages, cultures, worlds, related sciences and much more!
It is currently Wed 20 Sep 2017, 13:42

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2573 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126 ... 129  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Yay or Nay?
PostPosted: Fri 14 Jul 2017, 00:00 
greek
greek

Joined: Fri 03 Jul 2015, 14:36
Posts: 642
Location: Switzerland, usually
Nachtuil wrote:
I am working on a language with a phonology inspired by eastern slavic languages. I basically have a lot of palatalized consonants and have the following vowels:
i~ɪ
u~ʊ
e~ɛ
o
a

I like that Russian has allophony in its vowels depending on the consonant context (or maybe it is the reverse, I don't remember). My question is, which of the following rules sets is more plausible/interesting/sensible/appealing:

1.
ɪ becomes i after j and palatalised consonants.
ɛ becomes e after j and palatalised consonants.
ʊ becomes u after j and palatalised consonants.

2.
i becomes ɪ after j and palatalised consonants.
e becomes ɛ after j and palatalised consonants.
u becomes ʊ after j and palatalised consonants.


The first is very much more plausible; the second would basically be a dissimilation, which could of course also happen, but it’s rarer.

_________________
At kveldi skal dag lęyfa,
Konu es bręnnd es,
Mæki es ręyndr es,
Męy es gefin es,
Ís es yfir kømr,
Ǫl es drukkit es.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Yay or Nay?
PostPosted: Fri 14 Jul 2017, 20:32 
sinic
sinic

Joined: Wed 20 Jul 2016, 23:16
Posts: 358
Adarain wrote:
The first is very much more plausible; the second would basically be a dissimilation, which could of course also happen, but it’s rarer.


Oh ok good, thanks. I was going with rule set 1. The only niggling concern is that I realize u would more likely be pulled to ʉ than rest at ʊ and be pushed back to u with a palatalized consonant.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Yay or Nay?
PostPosted: Sat 15 Jul 2017, 06:03 
cuneiform
cuneiform

Joined: Sat 21 Jul 2012, 07:01
Posts: 92
Location: Ohio
Nachtuil wrote:
Oh ok good, thanks. I was going with rule set 1. The only niggling concern is that I realize u would more likely be pulled to ʉ than rest at ʊ and be pushed back to u with a palatalized consonant.


That could simply be a dialectal variation, if you wanted. I don't know how you're deriving the lax allophones to begin with, but it could make for an interesting phonological shift if they were the result of, say, closed syllables, and then underwent the palatal changes, and then lost the closed syllable environment:

[te tek tʲe tʲek] > [te tɛk tʲe tʲɛk] > [te tɛk tʲe tʲek] > [te tɛ tʲe tʲe]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Yay or Nay?
PostPosted: Sat 15 Jul 2017, 06:55 
mongolian
mongolian

Joined: Thu 20 Nov 2014, 02:27
Posts: 4151
To my knowledge Russian takes the dissimilation step, so -skiy is pronounced /skʲɪj/

_________________
Spoiler: show
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland

What is made of man will crumble away.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Yay or Nay?
PostPosted: Sat 15 Jul 2017, 07:00 
cleardarkness
cleardarkness

Joined: Sun 31 Mar 2013, 12:16
Posts: 4307
qwed117 wrote:
To my knowledge Russian takes the dissimilation step, so -skiy is pronounced /skʲɪj/

No, Russian vowels become lax /ə ɪ ʊ/ in unstressed syllables, and I don't think this can be termed dissimilation. However, Russian vowel allophony is quite complex, and I would recommend the Wikipedia article on Russian phonology.

_________________
HííenununóóoþaProject LimestoneAłýýla
EnelloNınuıntı


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Yay or Nay?
PostPosted: Sat 15 Jul 2017, 11:29 
mongolian
mongolian

Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32
Posts: 3801
Adarain wrote:
Nachtuil wrote:
I am working on a language with a phonology inspired by eastern slavic languages. I basically have a lot of palatalized consonants and have the following vowels:
i~ɪ
u~ʊ
e~ɛ
o
a

I like that Russian has allophony in its vowels depending on the consonant context (or maybe it is the reverse, I don't remember). My question is, which of the following rules sets is more plausible/interesting/sensible/appealing:

1.
ɪ becomes i after j and palatalised consonants.
ɛ becomes e after j and palatalised consonants.
ʊ becomes u after j and palatalised consonants.

2.
i becomes ɪ after j and palatalised consonants.
e becomes ɛ after j and palatalised consonants.
u becomes ʊ after j and palatalised consonants.


The first is very much more plausible; the second would basically be a dissimilation, which could of course also happen, but it’s rarer.

I think if glides are considered lax or tense is pretty much language specific.

_________________
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :fra: 4 :esp: 4 :ind:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Yay or Nay?
PostPosted: Sat 15 Jul 2017, 19:09 
sinic
sinic

Joined: Wed 20 Jul 2016, 23:16
Posts: 358
Thanks for the responses by the way.
I do recall this Russian phonology page here on Wikipedia. I forgot how massive of a role stress plays in the allophony. The system I derived is vastly simpler, no question about it.
I may just use the following where the left is after a palatal or palatalized consonant and the right otherwise and see how it works in practice.
i~ɪ
e~ɛ
a~ɑ
u
o


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Yay or Nay?
PostPosted: Sun 16 Jul 2017, 18:48 
greek
greek

Joined: Wed 17 May 2017, 17:10
Posts: 792
Location: The Universe
(shouldn't the title be yea or nay? Ok, I'll leave.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Yay or Nay?
PostPosted: Sun 16 Jul 2017, 20:50 
rupestrian
rupestrian

Joined: Thu 19 Mar 2015, 19:15
Posts: 16
Some background: I have a language with front-back vowel harmony that uses diaeresis to mark the "opposite variant" vowels (for lack of a better term, I think this will be understood), i.e. /y ø æ ɤ/ as <ü ö ä ë>. The other vowels are /i e u o ɑ/ <i e u o a>. I mark historically palatalized consonants with an acute accent, i.e. /ɲ tʃ ʃ ʒ/ as <ń ć ś ŕ>. There are no other voicing distinctions in stops or fricatives apart from /ʃ ʒ/. My questions are as follows:

  1. Would it make more sense to transcribe /e/ as <ë> considering that the rest of the front vowels are dotted? and likewise switch /ɤ/ to <e>.
  2. I feel as if having acute accents and diaeresis in my language looks cluttered at times. I want to use a subscript diacritic (or maybe even a <Cy> digraph system) on consonants instead and I'm torn on which to use. Right now I am considering <ṇ c̣ ṣ ṛ> or <ņ ç ş ŗ> (or, I guess, <ny cy sy ry>). What route is more pleasing?
  3. I currently have /rʲ/ > /ʒ/ and I really don't like having a single voicing distinction in stops/fricatives. I skimmed the index diachronica and I found that /rʲ/ simply becoming /r/ is very common crosslinguistically even when other palatalized segments become something else. Should I go the route /rʲ/ to /r/? I guess, by extension, what are other outcomes that arise from /rʲ/ besides a voiced stop or fricatives that could be an alternative to having it merge with plain /r/?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Yay or Nay?
PostPosted: Sun 16 Jul 2017, 21:03 
mayan
mayan
User avatar

Joined: Fri 27 Aug 2010, 07:17
Posts: 2180
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]
somehomo wrote:
Some background: I have a language with front-back vowel harmony that uses diaeresis to mark the "opposite variant" vowels (for lack of a better term, I think this will be understood), i.e. /y ø æ ɤ/ as <ü ö ä ë>. The other vowels are /i e u o ɑ/ <i e u o a>. I mark historically palatalized consonants with an acute accent, i.e. /ɲ tʃ ʃ ʒ/ as <ń ć ś ŕ>. There are no other voicing distinctions in stops or fricatives apart from /ʃ ʒ/. My questions are as follows:


  1. Would it make more sense to transcribe /e/ as <ë> considering that the rest of the front vowels are dotted? and likewise switch /ɤ/ to <e>.

Are those all vowels you have? /i/?
I would say no, though I'm struggling with /ɤ/ in Vålkakil.

Quote:
I feel as if having acute accents and diaeresis in my language looks cluttered at times. I want to use a subscript diacritic (or maybe even a <Cy> digraph system) on consonants instead and I'm torn on which to use. Right now I am considering <ṇ c̣ ṣ ṛ> or <ņ ç ş ŗ> (or, I guess, <ny cy sy ry>). What route is more pleasing?

A dot below is used for retroflexes or "emphatic". <ņ ç ş ŗ> are nice if you have time to type them. At least with affricates and sibilants it looks nice. I prefer <Cj> instead of <Cy> because <j> is just smaller.
Quote:
  • I currently have /rʲ/ > /ʒ/ and I really don't like having a single voicing distinction in stops/fricatives. I skimmed the index diachronica and I found that /rʲ/ simply becoming /r/ is very common crosslinguistically even when other palatalized segments become something else. Should I go the route /rʲ/ to /r/?

  • I personally find having one voicing distinction unique and interesting, but if you don't like it, that's apparently the easiest way.

    _________________
    My metathread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760


    Top
     Profile  
     
     Post subject: Re: Yay or Nay?
    PostPosted: Sun 16 Jul 2017, 21:09 
    mongolian
    mongolian

    Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32
    Posts: 3801
    1. No, because <i> /i/, but see 2.
    2. A third option would be to just make an orthographic convention, that diaresis and acute accents cannot co-occur.
    3. You could also have /rʲ/ > /ʒ/ > /ʃ/

    _________________
    Creyeditor
    "Thoughts are free."
    Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
    1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :fra: 4 :esp: 4 :ind:
    :con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
    [<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]


    Top
     Profile  
     
     Post subject: Re: Yay or Nay?
    PostPosted: Sun 16 Jul 2017, 21:13 
    mayan
    mayan
    User avatar

    Joined: Mon 17 Mar 2014, 03:22
    Posts: 1986
    somehomo wrote:
    Some background: I have a language with front-back vowel harmony that uses diaeresis to mark the "opposite variant" vowels, i.e. /y ø æ ɤ/ as <ü ö ä ë>. I mark historically palatalized consonants with an acute accent, i.e. /ɲ tʃ ʃ ʒ/ as <ń ć ś ŕ>. There are no other voicing distinctions in stops or fricatives apart from /ʃ ʒ/. My questions are as follows:

    1. Would it make more sense to transcribe /e/ as <ë> considering that the rest of the front vowels are dotted? and likewise switch /ɤ/ to <e>.
    2. I feel as if having acute accents and diaeresis in my language looks cluttered at times. I want to use a subscript diacritic (or maybe even a <Cy> digraph system) on consonants instead and I'm torn on which to use. Right now I am considering <ṇ c̣ ṣ ṛ> or <ņ ç ş ŗ> (or, I guess, <ny cy sy ry>. What route is more pleasing?
    3. I currently have /rʲ/ > /ʒ/ and I really don't like having a single voicing distinction in stops/fricatives. I skimmed the index diachronica and I found that /rʲ/ simply becoming /r/ is very common crosslinguistically even when other palatalized segments become something else. Should I go the route /rʲ/ to /r/?
    1. Nay
    2. <ny cy sy ry> if you want easy to type and <ṇ c̣ ṣ ṛ> if you want pretty (IMO)
    3. A very large YAY

    Edit: Creyeditor's suggestion to 3 is very good.

    _________________
    Diachronic Conlanging is the path to happiness, given time. [;)]

    Gigxkpoyan Languages: CHÍFJAEŚÍ RETLA TLAPTHUV DÄLDLEN CJUŚËKNJU ṢATT

    Other langs: Søsøzatli Kamëzet


    Top
     Profile  
     
     Post subject: Re: Yay or Nay?
    PostPosted: Sun 16 Jul 2017, 22:08 
    rupestrian
    rupestrian

    Joined: Thu 19 Mar 2015, 19:15
    Posts: 16
    Thank you all very much!

    Creyeditor wrote:
    1. No, because <i> /i/, but see 2


    Well, there is <ı> used in Turkic languages, so I would consider <i> as being dotted even though only one dot exists as opposed to the two diaeresis. Regardless, I think I'll keep it as is. <e ë> are the most common two vowels and its really more of a hassle to switch the two than I'd like.

    I'm not too sure on the consonants.

    Quote:
    Aś köŕśül üneyhene eytäyöce höya ćinithećötän.
    Aṣ köṣṛül üneyhene eytayöce höyä c̣inithec̣ötän.
    Aş köŗşül üneyhene eytayöce höya çinitheçötän.
    Asy körsyül üneyhene eytayöce höyä cyinithecyötän.
    Asj körsjül üneyhene eytäyöce höya cjinithecjötän.


    Concerning consonants, here's an example sentence written with each convention. This might tie into a non-yay-or-nay question. I immediately don't like the last two because consonant clusters agree orthographically in palatal-ness (i.e. kör + śül > köŕśül) and that the palatalization was contrastive before /i. First off, I want to ask if these assimilation rules are naturalistic or should be modified:

    Quote:
    - Plain alveolar consonants will become palatal consonants (i.e. /n t͡s s r/ > [ɲ t͡ʃ ʃ ʒ]) next to another palatal consonant regardless of order.
    - /nj t͡sj sj rj/ become [ɲ t͡ʃ ʃ ʒ]. /j/ is elided after existing /ɲ t͡ʃ ʃ ʒ/.
    - /ʃʒ ʒʃ/ are realized as [ʒ: ʃ:] respectively.


    The second assimilatory rule is why I suggested <Cy> as /j/ is transcribed <y>. I'll wait for more feedback before I make a definite decision.


    Top
     Profile  
     
     Post subject: Re: Yay or Nay?
    PostPosted: Mon 17 Jul 2017, 07:18 
    metal
    metal

    Joined: Wed 07 Sep 2011, 21:25
    Posts: 309
    Location: Tübingen, Germany
    somehomo wrote:
    Quote:
    Aś köŕśül üneyhene eytäyöce höya ćinithećötän.
    Aṣ köṣṛül üneyhene eytayöce höyä c̣inithec̣ötän.
    Aş köŗşül üneyhene eytayöce höya çinitheçötän.
    Asy körsyül üneyhene eytayöce höyä cyinithecyötän.
    Asj körsjül üneyhene eytäyöce höya cjinithecjötän.

    I like the third option best, because it looks a bit like Turkish.

    Yet another sound change option for *rj would be to lenite it to /j/.

    _________________
    Blog: audmanh.wordpress.com
    Conlangs: Ronc Tyu | Buruya Nzaysa | Doayâu | Tmaśareʔ


    Top
     Profile  
     
     Post subject: Re: Yay or Nay?
    PostPosted: Mon 17 Jul 2017, 07:21 
    cleardarkness
    cleardarkness

    Joined: Sun 31 Mar 2013, 12:16
    Posts: 4307
    cedh wrote:
    Yet another sound change option for *rj would be to lenite it to /j/.

    [+1]

    _________________
    HííenununóóoþaProject LimestoneAłýýla
    EnelloNınuıntı


    Top
     Profile  
     
     Post subject: Re: Yay or Nay?
    PostPosted: Mon 17 Jul 2017, 14:00 
    greek
    greek

    Joined: Fri 03 Jul 2015, 14:36
    Posts: 642
    Location: Switzerland, usually
    Back in ye olden days, I had a plan for Mesak to have a substrate language/civilization, and said language would have clicks. However, I’ve since repurposed Semụr as said substrate.

    Do I add clicks to its phonology?
    This is the phone inventory, where parentheses are allophonic only:

    Spoiler: show
    Image


    Syllable structure is C₁V(C₂) where C₁ is all consonants and C₂ is quite restricted. I would probably add around 15 click phonemes to the C₁ position. The lexicon is fairly empty, so it wouldn’t feel very tacked on imo. I’d also probably restrict clicks to root-initial position, khoi-san style (i.e. not allow them in affixes and particles). I reckon the inventory would be along the lines of:

    PoA: Alveolar !, Palatal ǂ, Lateral ‖
    MoA: Tenuis !, Nasal !̃, Voiced !̬, Aspirate !ʰ and maybe one more, perhaps preglottalized or voiceless nasal.

    _________________
    At kveldi skal dag lęyfa,
    Konu es bręnnd es,
    Mæki es ręyndr es,
    Męy es gefin es,
    Ís es yfir kømr,
    Ǫl es drukkit es.


    Top
     Profile  
     
     Post subject: Re: Yay or Nay?
    PostPosted: Mon 17 Jul 2017, 15:28 
    mongolian
    mongolian

    Joined: Tue 14 Aug 2012, 18:32
    Posts: 3801
    Wow, this is a really beautiful phone inventory. It is beautiful on its own, but clicks would also really fit it, because you already have a contrast in aspiration/voicing and also affricates. So I would say, yes add clicks. Be sure to connect the MOAs to the other consonants though, so voiceless nasal (or other something similar) is a must [:D]
    Also yay for having clicks in C1 position only. Very naturalistic.



    I also have a tiny question, that has no connection to your question: How front is your a? Is it really front or maybe more central?

    _________________
    Creyeditor
    "Thoughts are free."
    Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
    1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :fra: 4 :esp: 4 :ind:
    :con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
    [<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]


    Top
     Profile  
     
     Post subject: Re: Yay or Nay?
    PostPosted: Mon 17 Jul 2017, 15:48 
    greek
    greek

    Joined: Fri 03 Jul 2015, 14:36
    Posts: 642
    Location: Switzerland, usually
    Creyeditor wrote:
    Wow, this is a really beautiful phone inventory. It is beautiful on its own, but clicks would also really fit it, because you already have a contrast in aspiration/voicing and also affricates. So I would say, yes add clicks. Be sure to connect the MOAs to the other consonants though, so voiceless nasal (or other something similar) is a must [:D]
    Also yay for having clicks in C1 position only. Very naturalistic.


    Thanks for the compliments, and I guess clicks it is.

    Quote:
    I also have a tiny question, that has no connection to your question: How front is your a? Is it really front or maybe more central?



    I wouldn’t have put it there if it wasn’t front. I usually use /a/ as a central vowel tho (I’d never use the symbol /ä/, instead if I had to contrast front and central I’d use /æ a/).

    _________________
    At kveldi skal dag lęyfa,
    Konu es bręnnd es,
    Mæki es ręyndr es,
    Męy es gefin es,
    Ís es yfir kømr,
    Ǫl es drukkit es.


    Top
     Profile  
     
     Post subject: Re: Yay or Nay?
    PostPosted: Thu 20 Jul 2017, 00:47 
    sinic
    sinic

    Joined: Sun 27 Jan 2013, 02:12
    Posts: 347
    Shonkasika nouns decline differently according to animacy . For the nominative and accusative cases, animate nouns take the suffixes -s and -d while inanimate nouns take -k and -(nothing) respectively. The first and second person pronouns (animate) are different, taking nothing in the animate case.

    I'm thinking of changing that so that the 1p and 2p pronouns take -dz in the nominative and -(nothing) in the accusative. Shonkasika is a pro-drop language due to the clear verb endings; thus, accusative forms will appear more often. So yay or nay for new (distinct) case forms for the 1p and 2p pronouns?

    _________________
    Visit my website for my blogs and information on my conlangs including Shonkasika: http://felipesnark.weebly.com/ It's a work in progress!


    Top
     Profile  
     
     Post subject: Re: Yay or Nay?
    PostPosted: Thu 20 Jul 2017, 01:12 
    roman
    roman
    User avatar

    Joined: Sat 01 Mar 2014, 07:19
    Posts: 1489
    felipesnark wrote:
    I'm thinking of changing that so that the 1p and 2p pronouns take -dz in the nominative and -(nothing) in the accusative. Shonkasika is a pro-drop language due to the clear verb endings; thus, accusative forms will appear more often. So yay or nay for new (distinct) case forms for the 1p and 2p pronouns?

    I say yay. I don't know if it's more common in natlangs but I think it makes a lot more sense logistically


    Top
     Profile  
     
    Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
    Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2573 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126 ... 129  Next

    All times are UTC + 1 hour


    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests


    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum

    Search for:
    Jump to:  
    Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
    Americanized by Maël Soucaze.