(Conlangs) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

[shimobaatar]

Couldn't you have characters for monosyllabic words/roots be used for the sounds of their nuclei, even if those vowels aren't initial?

Thanks yeah, that is one way - although I imagine that might create a period of confusion where the character could either be read as a consonant initial, or vowel nuclei?

That's certainly a possibility, but they probably wouldn't use one character for both its initial consonant and its vowel, since I'd assume they have characters for multiple words with the same initial consonant and for multiple words with the same vowel, right?

For example, let's say there are characters for two words, [dan] and [dal]. These don't have to be valid words in your language; they're just for the sake of making sure I explain myself well. Anyway, they could use the [dan] character for [d], but the [dal] character for [a].

Then again, when it comes to writing systems, ambiguity and confusion are pretty naturalistic.

Yes of course, you're right. I just meant that there would probably be an intermediate period changing from pictographic to alphabetic, where each phoneme has several variants until some form of standardisation occurs, so /dal/ and /dan/ might both be used for /d/ and/or /a/. This could lead to some interesting variations across the derived writing systems actually. Maybe one group standardise the /dal/ character as /d/ and the other as /a/, etc.

Oh, absolutely. Great thinking!

[sangi39]

I'm trying to develop a conscript for Qutrussan, starting with a 'proto-script' which will probably lead to most of the writing systems in this world. The proto script likely began as simple pictographs/hierogylphs, evolving into a more alphabetic form.

My problem is that the proto-language which the script was first used for was rich in vowels, so it would probably evolve vowel signs early on, unlike the development of Semitic scripts. However, only a limited set of vowels can appear word initially, so I can't use the usual route of initial phoneme of a word > letter.

What ways could a full system of vowel signs arise from such a system? I could of course just have the limited word-initial vowels stand in for similar vowels, but that gets messy and I feel like the speakers of this language would soon develop a way to distinguish them.

Thanks!

There's also the possibility that words beginning with "weak" consonants, e.g. the glottal stop, glottal fricative, or semi-vowels, would come to be used for vowel sounds that don't appear initially.

So, for example, if you only have words that begin with /i u a/ but not /e o/, then words beginning with /je wo/ might become used the represent the vowels /e o/ instead.

[Void]

Does it make sense for a language to have a three-way contrast between plain, palatilised, and pharyngealised consonants?

And would a pharyngeal plosive/fricative have more chances of becoming voiced, compared to a plain plosive/fricative?

[Creyeditor]

Does it make sense for a language to have a three-way contrast between plain, palatilised, and pharyngealised consonants?

And would a pharyngeal plosive/fricative have more chances of becoming voiced, compared to a plain plosive/fricative?

1. Yes
2. No, IINM. I can't think of a good reason for that.

[Inkcube-Revolver]

Does it make sense for a language to have a three-way contrast between plain, palatilised, and pharyngealised consonants?

And would a pharyngeal plosive/fricative have more chances of becoming voiced, compared to a plain plosive/fricative?

1. Yes
2. No, IINM. I can't think of a good reason for that.

I may be wrong, but historically, the pharyngealized consonants could have been ejectives at one point, no?

[Davush]

If we’re talking about pharyngealized consonants (rather than actual pharyngeal consonants) then I think there is some evidence they could become voiced as pharyngealized /t/ is often realized as voiced in some Arabic dialects, and I think there is evidence that the already voiced pharyngealized series partly comes from unvoiced ones. Also the theory that the pharyngealized series finds its origins in ejectives is quite widespread (although I don’t know what the academic consensus is).

[sangi39]

Does it make sense for a language to have a three-way contrast between plain, palatilised, and pharyngealised consonants?

And would a pharyngeal plosive/fricative have more chances of becoming voiced, compared to a plain plosive/fricative?

1. Yes
2. No, IINM. I can't think of a good reason for that.

I may be wrong, but historically, the pharyngealized consonants could have been ejectives at one point, no?

I seem to recall this being in reference to Proto-Semitic, and also Proto-Afro-Asiatic, and from what I can tell they are generally reconstructed as being "glottalised in some way" in both of these languages (but it's unclear in exactly what way), becoming pharyngealised consonants in some languages (languages like Ubykh have pharyngealised ejective).

As for pharyngealised consonants being more prone to voicing... maybe? Pharyngealised consonants can certainly be voiced, and I'd assume that allophonic voicing of pharyngealised consonants in some environments might make them more distinct from plain consonants, and then the pharyngealisation might drop as a feature of the language as a whole (leading to a partial merger of tenuis and pharyngealised consonants in environments where the latter didn't undergo voicing).

I wouldn't say there's anything inherent in pharyngealisation that would cause that voicing, though, but I could be wrong.

[Pabappa]

I've used pharyngealization > voicing for stops on the basis that a pharyngealized stop cannot also be aspirated, and that unaspirated stops tend to become voiced stops. I don't think it would help for fricatives though.

[cedh]

...on the basis that a pharyngealized stop cannot also be aspirated...

Chilcotin has a pharyngealized aspirated alveolar affricate. It even appears in the language's self-designation: [ts̠ˤʰᵊĩɬqʰotʼin]

[Void]

Thank you for your answers, y'all.

I've used pharyngealization > voicing for stops on the basis that a pharyngealized stop cannot also be aspirated, and that unaspirated stops tend to become voiced stops. I don't think it would help for fricatives though.

I'm not quite so sure about that point, though. I can successfuly pronounce [tˤʰ], for instance, but phonetics isn't my strong suit (nothing really is, but whatevs), so I might be pronouncing it as [tˤh].

/

My question in general stems from my desire to make a proto-language and evolve it into different languages. I kinda have a clear idea of what I want my "main" conlang to be, though, so this has more to do with not wanting to have a boring and minimalistic set of sound changes.

So seeing as there is no clear consensus on this topic, is it safe for me to assume that I am free (when it comes to naturalism rather than a direct artistic/æsthetic approach) to have either the tenuis or the pharyngealised consonants undergo voicing?

[Salmoneus]

The Arabic development is probably specific to Semitic. Because they originated as ejectives, which cannot be aspirated, the Arabic emphatics are unaspirated, which in turn makes them more likely to voice.

However, emphatics CAN be aspirated in other languages, so that won't apply universally.

But of course, you could derive emphatics from ejectives yourself, in which case the same tendency would apply.


[but if you derived your pharyngealisation like Irish velarisation, just from adjoining vowels, then you'd expect the same distinctions as in the other series]

[sangi39]

Actually, that's a point, are you planning on having, say, pharyngealised consonants in one language correspond to voiced consonants in another? If so, ejectives can become voiced plosives in one language/branch (through intermediate implosives if you go by some ideas regarding the sound changes that went on in the various Afro-Asiatic languages), and (if the emphatic consonants of Proto-Semitic were ejectives) then they can become pharyngealised consonants in the other language/branch.

[Void]

Actually, I'm not planning on deriving pharyngealisation; rather, my proto-language would have a three-way contrast (between, pal., tenuis, and phar. consonants), and I would derive voiced and voiceless consonants from the tenuis and phar. contrast.

[but if you derived your pharyngealisation like Irish velarisation, just from adjoining vowels, then you'd expect the same distinctions as in the other series]

So could a language technically have only a phar. - pal. contrast, with no tenuis consonants?

[Salmoneus]

Actually, I'm not planning on deriving pharyngealisation; rather, my proto-language would have a three-way contrast (between, pal., tenuis, and phar. consonants), and I would derive voiced and voiceless consonants from the tenuis and phar. contrast.

[but if you derived your pharyngealisation like Irish velarisation, just from adjoining vowels, then you'd expect the same distinctions as in the other series]

So could a language technically have only a phar. - pal. contrast, with no tenuis consonants?

"Tenuis" normally means neither aspirated nor voiced (nor otherwise weirdly-phonated), which has nothing to do with palatalisation or pharyngealisation. All three series could be tenuis, or none of them.

However if you just mean a plain, neutral series without secondary articulations: sure, Irish doesn't have one of those (phonemically; phonetically some consonants don't really have secondary articulations, iiuc). Irish just has velarised and palatalised series - and velarisation is very close to pharyngealisation (the latter in Arabic is apparently in practice often the former).

However: again, it depends how you're deriving them. If your pharyngealised consonants originate as ejectives, I can't imagine them being contrasted against just a palatalised series - where did the normal stops go? If they originate in a Goidelicesque spreading from adjacent vowels, I can't see why they'd have an aspiration difference, and hence I can't see why they'd become voiced any more than anything else would.

[and if you do do that, what happens to palatalised consonants - do they end up voiced or unvoiced?]

[Quetzalcoatl]

Hey people, I am thinking about creating a tonal language but I don' t really speak one yet and I am not an expert on classifying tones phonetically...

OK, so these are the tones that I would like to use in my conlang: https://vocaroo.com/i/s1KDtAreBpoC

can you help me to describe the tone contour (for example 41) and show me the right IPA symbols to display the tones that I use?

(I am pretty sure that I am going to use No. 1 to No. 5, but maybe I will leave out No. 6 as I do not want to re-invent Chinese and avoid to have to many high tones)

(BTW for those who don't know me from other forums: I wonder if you can guess my nationality by listening to my foreign accent in English... I would pay attention to my voicing and my intonation... )

---

Some Ideas I have:

As for lexical words, I would like to use only 4 tones: two falling and two falling-rising tones. In each subset, one tone should be high and the other one should be low, i.e. there should be a high-falling, a low-falling, a high falling-rising and a low falling-rising tone. The fifth tone (I call it the "low drop") I would just use for grammatical words like conjunctions, and the sixth tone just in the end of a sentence to mark questions.

[Void]

Actually, I'm not planning on deriving pharyngealisation; rather, my proto-language would have a three-way contrast (between, pal., tenuis, and phar. consonants), and I would derive voiced and voiceless consonants from the tenuis and phar. contrast.

[but if you derived your pharyngealisation like Irish velarisation, just from adjoining vowels, then you'd expect the same distinctions as in the other series]

So could a language technically have only a phar. - pal. contrast, with no tenuis consonants?

"Tenuis" normally means neither aspirated nor voiced (nor otherwise weirdly-phonated), which has nothing to do with palatalisation or pharyngealisation. All three series could be tenuis, or none of them.

However if you just mean a plain, neutral series without secondary articulations: sure, Irish doesn't have one of those (phonemically; phonetically some consonants don't really have secondary articulations, iiuc). Irish just has velarised and palatalised series - and velarisation is very close to pharyngealisation (the latter in Arabic is apparently in practice often the former).

However: again, it depends how you're deriving them. If your pharyngealised consonants originate as ejectives, I can't imagine them being contrasted against just a palatalised series - where did the normal stops go? If they originate in a Goidelicesque spreading from adjacent vowels, I can't see why they'd have an aspiration difference, and hence I can't see why they'd become voiced any more than anything else would.

[and if you do do that, what happens to palatalised consonants - do they end up voiced or unvoiced?]

In that case, Wikipedia has failed me once again, as it clearly mentions that tenuis means unpal. and unphar. as well.

As for your second point, I'm not sure I quite understand what you're saying, seeing as I'm not actually deriving the phar. set from anything, really; and if my proto-language has a three-way contrast, couldn't the plain consonants assimilate to either the phar. or pal. set based on environment?

[Pabappa]

In that case, Wikipedia has failed me once again, as it clearly mentions that tenuis means unpal. and unphar. as well.

As for your second point, I'm not sure I quite understand what you're saying, seeing as I'm not actually deriving the phar. set from anything, really; and if my proto-language has a three-way contrast, couldn't the plain consonants assimilate to either the phar. or pal. set based on environment?

Wikipedia article on enwp.org/tenuis_consonant doesnt say anything about coarticulations, so it doesnt rule out palatalization ... and apparently not pharyngealization either, since pharyngealization can be combined with aspiration.

I'd expect a language that has a three-way contrast of /tʲ ~ t ~ tʕ/ but no */tʲʕ/ to have derived from an earlier stage in which the third member had a feature that is rarely or never combined with palatalization. For example, velarized consonants cannot be palatalized ... it's a contradiction. Pharyngealized consonants can be palatalized, so there must be a reason why this language never evolved any palatalized pharyngealized consonants. You seem to plan not to make a proto-language for this language, but to be naturalistic, unless this is the original language of man, there must be one, and therefore a plan to produce the phonology of the language you're working on.

[Void]

In that case, Wikipedia has failed me once again, as it clearly mentions that tenuis means unpal. and unphar. as well.

As for your second point, I'm not sure I quite understand what you're saying, seeing as I'm not actually deriving the phar. set from anything, really; and if my proto-language has a three-way contrast, couldn't the plain consonants assimilate to either the phar. or pal. set based on environment?

Wikipedia article on enwp.org/tenuis_consonant doesnt say anything about coarticulations, so it doesnt rule out palatalization ... and apparently not pharyngealization either, since pharyngealization can be combined with aspiration.

I'd expect a language that has a three-way contrast of /tʲ ~ t ~ tʕ/ but no */tʲʕ/ to have derived from an earlier stage in which the third member had a feature that is rarely or never combined with palatalization. For example, velarized consonants cannot be palatalized ... it's a contradiction. Pharyngealized consonants can be palatalized, so there must be a reason why this language never evolved any palatalized pharyngealized consonants. You seem to plan not to make a proto-language for this language, but to be naturalistic, unless this is the original language of man, there must be one, and therefore a plan to produce the phonology of the language you're working on.

But I am talking about my proto-language's phonology. I mean, obviously from a naturalistic point-of-view, it would have a precursor, but there's only so much proto-building I can deal with it before it I lose my mind.

[Reyzadren]

What natlang does this griuskant sample audio recording sound like?

I'm curious to get some soundcheck from (linguistic ears of) other members here. Ignore the English bias within the voice pls. #shamelessadvertisement

[Creyeditor]

To me, it sounds like Siwss German with a Scandinavian touch. This might be because of the accentuation patterns. It could also sound like Japanese, but the consonant clusters (there are some, right?) destroy that for me.