Yay or Nay?

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 11715
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by shimobaatar » 12 Jul 2017 12:50

All4Ɇn wrote:
qwed117 wrote:That's definitely an option, but he has an old thread, a new thread, and then a brand-new thread on top of that.
That's what I'm concerned about
I don't see the problem, personally.

User avatar
DesEsseintes
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4609
Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by DesEsseintes » 12 Jul 2017 16:23

shimobaatar wrote:
All4Ɇn wrote:
qwed117 wrote:That's definitely an option, but he has an old thread, a new thread, and then a brand-new thread on top of that.
That's what I'm concerned about
I don't see the problem, personally.
Neither do I. I don't want to have to scroll through your old posts to get at your latest stuff.

User avatar
Frislander
runic
runic
Posts: 3496
Joined: 14 May 2016 18:47
Location: The North

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Frislander » 12 Jul 2017 16:30

DesEsseintes wrote:
shimobaatar wrote:
All4Ɇn wrote:
qwed117 wrote:That's definitely an option, but he has an old thread, a new thread, and then a brand-new thread on top of that.
That's what I'm concerned about
I don't see the problem, personally.
Neither do I. I don't want to have to scroll through your old posts to get at your latest stuff.
[+1]

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2705
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Omzinesý » 13 Jul 2017 10:55

Should Kôrem have a future suffix /ɪ/ <i> or a future infix <y> /ai/?

Pros for /ɪ/ <i>
+ There is also a stative perfect suffix /ʊ/ <u> in the same slot.
+ The future form is also used to encode the imperative and I find an imperative infix somewhat odd.
+ The language already has a frequentative infix and a voice infix, so words with three infixes would be unnatural.
'mitɛn 'knows/knew'
? mɪ'te̞nɪ 'will know'

Pros for /ai/ <y>
+ I just aesthetically like it more.
'mitɛn 'knows/knew'
? mɪ'tai̯ɛn 'will know'

User avatar
Adarain
greek
greek
Posts: 654
Joined: 03 Jul 2015 15:36
Location: Switzerland, usually

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Adarain » 13 Jul 2017 14:10

I like the infix more personally, however you could always consider a mix of the two:

Have a suffix -i that is generally realized as final /ɪ/ but metathesizes with the final consonant in a VC_# environment to become Vi̯C#, perhaps depending on the qualities of the vowels and consonant or whether those are stem or suffix segments or what not.
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.

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

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Nachtuil » 14 Jul 2017 00:52

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.

User avatar
Adarain
greek
greek
Posts: 654
Joined: 03 Jul 2015 15:36
Location: Switzerland, usually

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Adarain » 14 Jul 2017 01:00

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.

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

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Nachtuil » 14 Jul 2017 21:32

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.

Porphyrogenitos
sinic
sinic
Posts: 251
Joined: 21 Jul 2012 08:01
Location: Buffalo, NY

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Porphyrogenitos » 15 Jul 2017 07:03

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]

User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4489
Joined: 20 Nov 2014 02:27

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by qwed117 » 15 Jul 2017 07:55

To my knowledge Russian takes the dissimilation step, so -skiy is pronounced /skʲɪj/
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.

User avatar
DesEsseintes
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4609
Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by DesEsseintes » 15 Jul 2017 08:00

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.

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4517
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Creyeditor » 15 Jul 2017 12:29

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 :idn: 4 :fra: 4 :esp:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]

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

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Nachtuil » 15 Jul 2017 20:09

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

User avatar
GamerGeek
greek
greek
Posts: 854
Joined: 17 May 2017 18:10
Location: The Universe
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by GamerGeek » 16 Jul 2017 19:48

(shouldn't the title be yea or nay? Ok, I'll leave.)

somehomo
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 16
Joined: 19 Mar 2015 19:15

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by somehomo » 16 Jul 2017 21:50

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/?

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2705
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Omzinesý » 16 Jul 2017 22:03

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.
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.
[*]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/?[/list]
I personally find having one voicing distinction unique and interesting, but if you don't like it, that's apparently the easiest way.

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4517
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by Creyeditor » 16 Jul 2017 22:09

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 :idn: 4 :fra: 4 :esp:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]

User avatar
loglorn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1883
Joined: 17 Mar 2014 03:22

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by loglorn » 16 Jul 2017 22:13

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

somehomo
rupestrian
rupestrian
Posts: 16
Joined: 19 Mar 2015 19:15

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by somehomo » 16 Jul 2017 23:08

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.
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:
- 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.

User avatar
cedh
MVP
MVP
Posts: 377
Joined: 07 Sep 2011 22:25
Location: Tübingen, Germany
Contact:

Re: Yay or Nay?

Post by cedh » 17 Jul 2017 08:18

somehomo wrote:
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/.

Post Reply