my phonetics - naturalistic

If you're new to these arts, this is the place to ask "stupid" questions and get directions!
Post Reply
Żywia
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 1
Joined: 04 Nov 2019 17:04

my phonetics - naturalistic

Post by Żywia » 04 Nov 2019 17:48

So I'm new to conlanging. I make natural conlang to my conworld. Does my phonetics looks naturalistic? If no, why?

a /a/, ae /æ/, â /â/, b /b/, c /k/,d /d/, dh /ð/, e /e/, ë /ë/, f /f/, g /g/, h /h/, j /ʐ/, l /l/ lh /ɬ/, m /m/, n /n/, o /o/, oe /Ö/, ou /u/ p /p/, r /r/, s /z/, sh /ʂ/ t /t/, th /θ/, u /ü/, y /j/, x /s/, w /v/



and sorry for my bad English XDD

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4522
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: my phonetics - naturalistic

Post by Creyeditor » 04 Nov 2019 23:26

Hi and a very warm welcome from me,

I will sort your sound inventory, so that it is easier to see what might be naturalistic or unnaturalistic. Slashes /.../ indicate broad phonemic transcription. Angles <...> indicate orthography. The place of articulation goes from left to right, from labial to glottal. The manner of articulation goes from top to bottom, from nasal to approximant.

Consonants
/m n/ <m n> nasals
/p b t d k g/ <p b t d c g> plosives
/f v θ ð s z ʂ ʐ h/ <f w th dh x s sh j h> fricatives
/ɬ/ <lh> lateral fricatives
/r/<r> trills
/l j/ <l y> approximants

Vowels
/u/<u>
/e o/<e o>
/æ a/ <ae a>

You have no /i/. It's not common among natlangs, but I think it's an interesting gap. Similar for /w/, though there are some European languages that lack /w/. The lateral fricative is an interesting asset. All in all, your system is very fricative heavy, which often happens with one's first conlang. It happens in natlangs, but some consider it to be very European. Other than that, I think all is fine with your sound inventory.

I have a few questions. What sounds are /â/, /ë/, /Ö/ and /ü/? Is this IPA or some other phonetic notation? And is there any particular reason why you have included retroflex fricatives instead of postalveolar ones? I think it's okay, just asking.

Also, you technically only gave a sound inventory and an orthography. A phonological/phonetic description also includes things like the syllable structure/phonotactics, word stress, allophony and phonological processes.

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

User avatar
samsam
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 32
Joined: 18 Jul 2018 16:40

Re: my phonetics - naturalistic

Post by samsam » 06 Nov 2019 13:10

I have a few questions. What sounds are /â/, /ë/, /Ö/ and /ü/? Is this IPA or some other phonetic notation?
I believe /ü/ is /y/ and that /ö/ is /ø/. /â/and /ë/are probably /ɑ/ and /ɛ/ respectively.

Nachtuil
greek
greek
Posts: 549
Joined: 21 Jul 2016 00:16

Re: my phonetics - naturalistic

Post by Nachtuil » 10 Nov 2019 18:56

The consonants do look pretty plausible. If you're worried about having too many fricatives maybe make the retroflexes affricates and lose the voicing distinction on fricatives but it's fine either way.
I think it is really interesting you don't have /i/ as you have /u/ as a high vowel and /e/ is nearby. Having /y/ and /u/ and no /i/ could happen but it would be quite noteworthy. Maybe if you have /ø œ/ instead of /y ø/. It is up to you how much you care though.

Post Reply