Eathut - 7 phonemes

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
DV82LECM
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 135
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 03:31

Eathut - 7 phonemes

Post by DV82LECM » 07 Mar 2018 14:35

Eathut /i'atʔut/ ['jat:on] "spoken/language" (formally Iachor):

/p~f~v~m~b/ <p>
/t~(t)s~l~n~d/ <t>
/k~ʃ~ʒ~ŋ~g/ <c>
/ʔ~h/ <h>
/i~e~j/ <e>
/u~o~w/ <u>
/a~ɑ/ <a>

I've ALWAYS wanted to go minimalist somehow and showcased Iachor a while back, a language that was inspired by an attempt to rip-off the Jetsons' for inspiration ("Eep Opp Ork Ah Ah"). Anyway, I ran into a dead-end for the last attempt and picked it up again. I adore what I have. There is a LOT of allophony. And more than marked above. (The best part is, in the new formula, my original idea for the phrase "I love you" still works.)

Mostly inspired, as well, by Malayo-Polynesian languages, like Rotakas, and Pama-Nyungan...sort of.

Allophony is determined, largely, on the stress of a syllable, which, itself, is phonemic. The penult tends to NOT be marked.

The morphology of a word relies on a pleasant blend of heterorganic and homorganic functions.

The structure of a syllable is (C)V(C).

Word order is SOV.

There are NO long vowels or "naturally" occurring geminates.

Epá put caha.
/i'pa put 'kaʔa/
[i'pa poɾ 'kaʔa]
1p. 2p. love
"I love you."

Ca pute hahepueha apcúctape.
/ka put-ti ʔa-ʔipu'iʔa ap'ku-kta-pi/
(ka 'poɾ-ti ha-hi'pʷiʔa af'ku-ŋta-vi)
[ka 'puli haʔi'pʷiʔa af'kontavi]
3p.M 2p-GEN PLUR-knife possess-PST-NEG
"He didn't have the knives for you."
Last edited by DV82LECM on 20 Sep 2019 02:41, edited 13 times in total.

DV82LECM
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 135
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 03:31

Re: Eathut

Post by DV82LECM » 08 Mar 2018 17:01

Permitted intervocalic clusters (some SANDHI is involved).

[p: t: k: ft fk t͡sp t͡sk ʃp ʃt]
[mp nt ŋk mt mk np nk ŋp ŋt]

[p:ʷ t:ʷ k:ʷ ftʷ fkʷ (t)spʷ (t)skʷ ʃpʷ ʃtʷ]
[mpʷ ntʷ ŋkʷ mtʷ mkʷ npʷ nkʷ ŋpʷ ŋtʷ]

[p:ʲ t:ʃ k:ʲ ptʃ fkʲ lpʲ lkʲ ʃpʲ ktʃ]
[mpʲ ntʃ ŋkʲ mtʃ mkʲ npʲ nkʲ ŋpʲ ŋtʃ]

The coda of heterorganic syllables (T-C) become fricatives. Homorganic coda (T-T) become nasalized. Sandhi is witnessed as heterorganic nasal clusters assimilate to the point of articulation of the following consonant. (Heterorganic pronunciations are ancestral.) In the case of the mentioned, (T-T), the following consonant becomes voiced.
Last edited by DV82LECM on 21 Sep 2019 23:52, edited 6 times in total.

DV82LECM
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 135
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 03:31

Re: Eathut - 7 phoneme MINIMALISM. Feedback?

Post by DV82LECM » 12 Mar 2018 03:21

Maybe there is no feedback to give...but does anyone have any thoughts on this proposal?

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3355
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Eathut - 7 phoneme MINIMALISM.

Post by sangi39 » 12 Mar 2018 03:32

There is a proposed proto-language, annoyingly I've forgotten the name of it right now, that has a smaller phoneme inventory than even Central Rotokas, so that's at least, to an extent, "attested".

What are the conditions for the allophones?

EDIT: Proto-Lakes Plain! It's usually reconstructed with just *p *b *t *d *k *i *e *u *o *a, as far as I can tell. Nasal consonants in this particular family, however, are frequently absent, and where they do appear it's often adjacent to /a/ (which in Iau, for example, is nasalised by default, rhinoglottophilia got its hands on it). IIRC, Rotokas had the opposite situation, with nasals merging into the voiced plosives, but I could easily be wrong. The only problem with Proto-Lakes Plain as an example is that voicing is already distinctive.
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.

DV82LECM
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 135
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 03:31

Re: Eathut - 7 phoneme MINIMALISM.

Post by DV82LECM » 12 Mar 2018 12:14

sangi39 wrote:
12 Mar 2018 03:32

EDIT: Proto-Lakes Plain! It's usually reconstructed with just *p *b *t *d *k *i *e *u *o *a, as far as I can tell. Nasal consonants in this particular family, however, are frequently absent, and where they do appear it's often adjacent to /a/ (which in Iau, for example, is nasalised by default, rhinoglottophilia got its hands on it). IIRC, Rotokas had the opposite situation, with nasals merging into the voiced plosives, but I could easily be wrong. The only problem with Proto-Lakes Plain as an example is that voicing is already distinctive.
Voicing COULD be distinctive, allophonically, with each of those, likely having fricative or approximant status, as well. The voicing distinction in *b and *d might have been a solidifying of *m and *n, which still might be employed as allophones. Iau does just THAT.
Last edited by DV82LECM on 12 Mar 2018 13:02, edited 1 time in total.

DV82LECM
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 135
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 03:31

Re: Eathut - 7 phoneme MINIMALISM.

Post by DV82LECM » 12 Mar 2018 12:38

As for the conditions of the allophony. Here we freaking go!

[p t k] are the most standard. They show up at onset, always. As much, they appear in stressed syllables. They, also, end syllables. Unstressed, medially, they are [v l ʒ]. In front of another consonant, medially, they are [f ts ʃ]. IF there are two consecutive, unstressed consonants in a row, the one NEXT to the stressed syllable remains the first -- voiced -- category, the furthest becomes voiceless, upon the principle of secondary stress. It is reversed if the secondary stress falls on the penultimate syllable. [ts] loses its affricate status and becomes /s/. (I would have used brackets for that, but everything beyond this becomes stricken out.) All clusters are heterorganic, in nature. Now, this all only occurs in heterorganic syllables. If there is one that begins and ends with the same consonant, the second is nasalized. The heterorganic clusters used to be normal, but later sandhi integrated them to articulating to the following consonant. Involving the sequence, T-T, the following consonant after becomes voiced. Now for [ʔ]. At onset, it is [h]. The glottal stop is prominent in the second spot of a cluster, geminating the other 3. Involving the nasal allophones, [ʔ] will take on the identity of the consonant of the implied nasal: [mʔ nʔ ŋʔ] become [mp nt ŋk]. These are voiceless because the glottal plosive is such. However, due to the quality of T-T, [nt] becomes [nd]. At the end of a word, [t] becomes the alveolar tap. Since agglutiation is involved, like consonants and vowels coming together result in a loss and merger.

Now, the vowels: /i u/ become [e o] between consonants. Two or more unlike vowels may occur together, with ONE primarily stressed. All others, within certain rules, become semivowels. However, there are many cases where a semivowel is put BEFORE /i u/ to make the sequences [ji wu]. The above rule for vowel lowering still applies. In the context of the semivowels, such will attach itself the consonant preceding it. When this occurs in unstressed position, intervocalic consonants are voiced. Involving the glottal stop, all forms are as if it were [h]. And in the case of a homorganic syllable, where ending in a nasal, ending a word, that nasal will be dropped and/or often creates nasal vowels at the lexical coda of a word.

A good amount of my inspiration derives from David J. Peterson's KAMAKAWI.

cromulant
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 144
Joined: 13 Jan 2012 00:04

Re: Eathut - 7 phoneme MINIMALISM.

Post by cromulant » 12 Mar 2018 23:09

It's intriguing, but your explanations of the environments for the allophony aren't quite clear. I think examples would help.

cromulant
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 144
Joined: 13 Jan 2012 00:04

Re: Eathut - 7 phoneme MINIMALISM.

Post by cromulant » 12 Mar 2018 23:41

Particularly, I am unclear as to where the heterorganic nasal-stop sequences [mt mk ŋp ŋt] appear.

Here is what I'd suggest.

Is it true that all 16 CC combinations occur intervocalically? If so, I would just use /pp pt pk pʔ tp tt tk tʔ kp kt kk kʔ ʔp ʔt ʔk ʔʔ/ as your template and list how those "clusters" are realized in every possible environment, listing as many sets of the 16 phonetic realizations, in that order, as you need.

Then do the same for word-initial, intervocalic, and word-final /p t k ʔ/, in every possible environment.

Then, so for the vowels.

DV82LECM
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 135
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 03:31

Re: Eathut - 7 phoneme MINIMALISM.

Post by DV82LECM » 13 Mar 2018 00:15

cromulant wrote:
12 Mar 2018 23:41
Particularly, I am unclear as to where the heterorganic nasal-stop sequences [mt mk ŋp ŋt] appear.

Here is what I'd suggest.

Is it true that all 16 CC combinations occur intervocalically? If so, I would just use /pp pt pk pʔ tp tt tk tʔ kp kt kk kʔ ʔp ʔt ʔk ʔʔ/ as your template and list how those "clusters" are realized in every possible environment, listing as many sets of the 16 phonetic realizations, in that order, as you need.

Then do the same for word-initial, intervocalic, and word-final /p t k ʔ/, in every possible environment.

Then, so for the vowels.
Nasality, itself, appears when any such of a syllable is like so: P-P [p-m], T-T [t-n], C-C [k-ŋ]. In every other environment, except with a glottal stop as the onset of the next syllable, the second consonant is fricated. If it IS the glottal, it creates gemination. Now, when it comes to the nasality, like consonants initiate it, but recent generational developments have made sequences like you mentioned above ASSIMILIATE to the onset of the next syllable.

EATHUT "language" /i'atʔut/->/'jatʔot/->/'jat:ot/->['jat:on]
HUCPAT "wind" ['hoʃpaɾ]
TUTHE "arm (human) /'tutʔi/->/'tonʔi/->/'tonti/->['tondi]

The last one is the only example I have. But something like CUCPÁ (now, "to demonstrate/show/prove") would be /kuk'pa/->/koŋ'pa/->[kom'pa].

cromulant
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 144
Joined: 13 Jan 2012 00:04

Re: Eathut - 7 phoneme MINIMALISM.

Post by cromulant » 13 Mar 2018 02:10

DV82LECM wrote:
13 Mar 2018 00:15
Nasality, itself, appears when any such of a syllable is like so: P-P [p-m], T-T [t-n], C-C [k-ŋ]. In every other environment, except with a glottal stop as the onset of the next syllable, the second consonant is fricated.
You mean the first consonant is fricated, right? That's what your examples in your second post show.
DV82LECM wrote:
13 Mar 2018 00:15
If it IS the glottal, it creates gemination.
OK. So, /pp/ -> [mp] and /pʔ/ -> [pp]?

And /pʔ/ -> [pp]? It seems strange to analyze [pp mp] as /pʔ pp], rather than just saying "this language has phonemic nasals" and analyzing it straightforwardly as /pp mp/. What would compel a field linguist to analyze it that way?
DV82LECM wrote:
13 Mar 2018 00:15
Now, when it comes to the nasality, like consonants initiate it,
Since there are only four consonants, and they are all plosives, I assume "like consonants" means "the same consonant." So /pp/ -> [mp], /tt/ -> /nt/, /kk/ -> [ŋk]...got it, I think?
DV82LECM wrote:
13 Mar 2018 00:15
but recent generational developments have made sequences like you mentioned above ASSIMILIATE to the onset of the next syllable.
Still lost as to the heterorganic nasal-stop sequences. OK, so /pp/ becomes [mp] /kk/ becomes [ŋk], /pk/ becomes [fk]...where does [mk] come from?

Why would there even be a nasal allophone in this environment, if the locus of nasal allophony is the first of an identical pair of consonants?

You mention assimilation, but there's no assimilation here. What is assimilating to what? Assuming [mk] is /pk/, /p/ is not assimilating to /k/, it's just turning into a nasal -- which is what I thought it did when it was followed by /p/.
DV82LECM wrote:
13 Mar 2018 00:15
EATHUT "language" /i'atʔut/ [jat:on]
HUCPAT "wind" [hoʃpaɾ]
Why the different realization for the final /t/ in these words?
DV82LECM wrote:
13 Mar 2018 00:15
TUTHE "arm (human) /'tutʔi/->/'tonʔi/->/'tonti/->['tondi]
I thought the glottal stop induced allophonic gemination, i.e. ['tutti]. You said "If it IS the glottal, it creates gemination." But now we have the glottal creating nasalization.
DV82LECM wrote:
13 Mar 2018 00:15
The last one is the only example I have. But something like CUCPÁ (now, "to demonstrate/show/prove") would be /kuk'pa/->/koŋ'pa/->[kom'pa].
What happens to /kup'pa/? According to the rules, it should also become [kom'pa], right?

What about /kut'pa. Is that also [kom'pa]?

Why doesn't /kuk'pa/ become ['koʃpa]?

DV82LECM
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 135
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 03:31

Re: Eathut - 7 phoneme MINIMALISM.

Post by DV82LECM » 13 Mar 2018 03:28

There are no natural geminates, because there are no homorganic clusters: [pp tt kk] DON'T exist, outright. (And the glottal plosive is NEVER the first of a cluster.) The solid reason that I induced nasalization, at all, was because I wanted nasals somewhere...AND the thought of [pup tit kak] being potential syllables with such a limited inventory pissed me off! It was just that they were lexical coda softenings of those sounds, but I spread them into the medial position for variety. I've tried to develop a proto-linguistic reason for such a shift, but it has proven odd.

Tomorrow, I will try to elaborate on all your points. Honestly, though, just look at ANY language like Pirahã or Iau and ask yourself what natural even is at those phonological scales.

Okay, here:

If a syllable does NOT begin and end with the same consonant, then the coda, medially, is a fricative. If it DOES begin and end with the same, the coda, medially, is a nasal. The fricatives are easy. The nasal are a little harder.

TUPCA is [tofka]; these are easy. Just a shift in the HETERORGANIC sound.

CUCPA is /kukpa/->/koŋpa/->[kompa]
CUCTA is /kukta/->/koŋta/->[konta]
CUCHA is /kukʔa/->/koŋʔa/->[koŋka]

The first consonant of a syllable sets the tone for the coda of that syllable. If it is a nasal, THEN the following consonant sets the tone FURTHER. At least, in the cases of [p t k]. IF it is the glottal plosive, THEN the nasal turns it into the corresponding voiceless consonant. And imagine you are a field linguist finding that these rules ARE how a language DOES sound when you consider that agglutination is involved.

ÚTHEUCHEA /'ot:ʃokʲ:a/ "will be working"; UTHE [ot:i] "work", UC [uk] "gerund", HEA [ʔia] "future".
Last edited by DV82LECM on 13 Mar 2018 04:22, edited 4 times in total.

cromulant
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 144
Joined: 13 Jan 2012 00:04

Re: Eathut - 7 phoneme MINIMALISM.

Post by cromulant » 13 Mar 2018 03:57

DV82LECM wrote:
13 Mar 2018 03:28
There are no natural geminates, because there are no homorganic clusters: [pp tt kk] DON'T exist, outright.

You said phonemic geminates exist:
DV82LECM wrote:
13 Mar 2018 03:28
Nasality, itself, appears when any such of a syllable is like so: P-P [p-m], T-T [t-n], C-C [k-ŋ].
You said phonetic geminates exist:
DV82LECM wrote:
13 Mar 2018 03:28
If it IS the glottal, it creates gemination

You are contradicting yourself all over the place.

EDIT: oh I see, P-P means pVp. OK, you're not contradicting yourself, I stand self-corrected.

DV82LECM
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 135
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 03:31

Re: Eathut - 7 phoneme MINIMALISM.

Post by DV82LECM » 13 Mar 2018 04:14

cromulant wrote:
13 Mar 2018 03:57
DV82LECM wrote:
13 Mar 2018 03:28
There are no natural geminates, because there are no homorganic clusters: [pp tt kk] DON'T exist, outright.

You said phonemic geminates exist:
DV82LECM wrote:
13 Mar 2018 03:28
Nasality, itself, appears when any such of a syllable is like so: P-P [p-m], T-T [t-n], C-C [k-ŋ].
You said phonetic geminates exist:
DV82LECM wrote:
13 Mar 2018 03:28
If it IS the glottal, it creates gemination

You are contradicting yourself all over the place.
Phonetically, NOT phonemically. They are a product of [p t k] in front of the glottal plosive.

DV82LECM
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 135
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 03:31

Re: Eathut - 7 phoneme MINIMALISM.

Post by DV82LECM » 13 Mar 2018 04:24

To be fair to YOU...this is the most complex project I've EVER worked on. I'm surprised it worked this far.

cromulant
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 144
Joined: 13 Jan 2012 00:04

Re: Eathut - 7 phoneme MINIMALISM.

Post by cromulant » 13 Mar 2018 04:24

Cool, that clears up my confusion.

But if it's agglutinative, has (C)V(C) structure, and only 4 Cs, how is it possible that geminates never never occur across morpheme boundaries?

DV82LECM
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 135
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 03:31

Re: Eathut - 7 phoneme MINIMALISM.

Post by DV82LECM » 13 Mar 2018 04:32

cromulant wrote:
13 Mar 2018 04:24
Cool, that clears up my confusion.

But if it's agglutinative, has (C)V(C) structure, and only 4 Cs, how is it possible that geminates never never occur across morpheme boundaries?
Merger and/or loss. The truth is, my auditory acuity has always been a bit off. I have traces of HYPERLEXIA, and distinguishing sounds over learning how to speak has always been hard. I have ALWAYS attempted to make languages with heterorganic boundaries. To be sure, I have tossed the idea around, but I find it hard to like. As much, long vowels don't exist either. Can't stand them.

Example: TEP [tep] "to see", -PE [pi] "negative marker", TEPE ['tivi] "not see." (The TV does LIE to you, so don't watch. :P)

EDIT: I decided to add the onset clusters, [sp sk pɾ kɾ]. They only exist at onset. Still pondering agglutination rules.

DV82LECM
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 135
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 03:31

Re: Eathut - 7 phoneme MINIMALISM.

Post by DV82LECM » 27 Mar 2018 15:32

I've never worked on what would be a strongly agglutinative language, but, then again, that depended on the vowels for me. This is in line to my tastes.

Anyway, a bit about the grammar.

I utilize a basic past (-(e)cta) and future (-hea) tense system. As well as a simple perfect/completed (-hut) and imperfect/continuous (-uc) aspect system.

However, where it gets complex is the moods. As a thought experiment, I want to base this on how I actually, sort of, define life.

I use moods in descending order of likelihood: POTENTIAL ("assured ability"), CONDITIONAL ("probability"), HYPOTHETICAL ("possibility"), and the fading DUBITATIVE ("uncertainty").

There are, also degrees of personal belief of outcome: DELIBERATIVE ("should") and OPTATIVE ("wish/want").

And, to sum up, degrees of directives: COHORTATIVE ("let's") and IMPERATIVE ("must").

I might do more, but not many; simply, evidentiality. The issue I am having is how to adequately make them productive enough to use many of them together (while knowing not all CAN be). I can make all be used in the present tense and many, if not likely all, in the past. The future is proving hard. I might axe the future for the moods, but that seems KINDA silly.

Basically, I am looking for feedback. How might you all mix these mood+tense/aspect parameters?
Last edited by DV82LECM on 15 Jun 2019 16:16, edited 1 time in total.

Nachtuil
greek
greek
Posts: 554
Joined: 21 Jul 2016 00:16

Re: Eathut - 7 phoneme MINIMALISM.

Post by Nachtuil » 28 Mar 2018 03:19

I wonder why you would want so much allophony but I suppose that is the point. [:P] It would be interesting to find out if there is any consensus out there what the most extreme example of allophony in a natlang is.

What you have seems promising so far. I like the simple but nice orthography you have going on.
I utilize a basic past (-(e)cta) and future (-hea) tense system. As well as a simple perfect/completed (-hut) and imperfect/continuous (-(u)c) aspect system.
Seems good. Most "present tense" meanings would be covered by the perfect and imperfective right?
Basically, I am looking for feedback. How might you all mix these mood+tense/aspect parameters?
Converbs are the rage lately, maybe you can cover some of the moods with them. I think there is nothing wrong with making is a hot mess where many meanings are affixes with several adverbs to get some of the moods and have many combinations which simply do not occur. I'd even suggest it may be interesting to explore expressing some evidentiality in different ways depending on the tense while keeping a few of them the same across tenses.

Where allophony appeals to you, perhaps I am due to make a language with a sadistically irregular and messy verb structure.

Why would axing the future be silly? The imperfective could probably pick up the slack with temporal nouns, auxiliary verbs or adverbs.

DV82LECM
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 135
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 03:31

Re: Eathut - 7 phoneme MINIMALISM.

Post by DV82LECM » 28 Mar 2018 04:26

The allophony is to open up the ability of SOME variety. Note that I am attempting something that does NOT EXIST. Iau and Pirahã have disturbingly distinguishable levels of allophony. But they also have more phones than I do. When we get beyond why languages commit the act of phonetic purge paralleled to their phonemic realizations, we are left with as strange of a riddle as to HOW certain mergers take place to begin with. I admit I take certain unforseen liberties, but none that would, seemingly, be any weirder than actually finding a language with its said quirks in it. We all attempt to push the limits of naturalism, once, I'm sure...but allophony, I think, is almost never a tell of transgressions committed against naturalism. I started with universals in mind, taking them to a logical zenith with all (of four) voiceless consonants -- of all noted articulation spots -- and the three most common vowels. Now, we have to determine how a real people might (and I say MIGHT) derive ways to happenstancially distinguish these parameters if they were to EVER arise.

DV82LECM
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 135
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 03:31

Re: Eathut - 7 phoneme MINIMALISM.

Post by DV82LECM » 25 Jun 2019 17:46

After a year and change, I am finally picking this lovely and bizarre project up, again...

Expect updates. (Crona needed a break.)

Post Reply