Given this, how can I use the laryngeals in combination with the vowel progression above to produce these desire syllable shapes (U = vowel, acute = stress, macron = length):
CUCÚC- > CCÚC-
CŪCŪ́C- > CUCÚC-
CŪ́CUC- > CÚCC-
CUCŪ́C- > CCÚC-
I'm not sure why you're skeptical - have a listen to some Welsh, Liverpudlian and Northern Irish accents and you can hear a clear low tone on the stressed syllable. Welsh language also does this.Pabappa wrote: ↑20 Nov 2018 03:59I'm skeptical of a language with low tone on stressed syllabbles but the OP seemed to want the 1st setup anyway. I think that it should be easy to research if need be and may be I'm wrong. Any word-level binary tone contrast is functionally equivalent to any other .... MLM/MHM can surface as MML/MHL , for example, and that is what I do with my own conlangs.
yangfiretiger121 wrote: ↑18 Nov 2018 02:36My conlang unified the Romanizations of its moraic sonorants (ñ (/Ñ/)) and obstruents (q (/Q/)) a few centuries ago. Is the [c] in the hypothetical word soqça (/ɕœ̠Q.c͡çɑ̟/ [ɕœ̠c.c͡çɑ̟]) considered an allophone of /Q/? Is it natural for a language to only allow voiced moraic sonorants ([w]) and voiceless moraic obstruents?
Additionally, is the splitting of former voiced geminates between nasals (cf. [bb] → [mm]) and approximants (cf. [xx] → [ww]) plausible?
People's efforts can only be directed onto answering so much. But anyhow, here's my best attempt.
Well yeah, what makes you think it wouldn't be allophonic?
Isn't that basically how Japanese works?Is it natural for a language to only allow voiced moraic sonorants ([w]) and voiceless moraic obstruents?
Hm, this one's a bit weird, because firstly when voiced obstruents geminate the natural thing to me is for them to devoice, because gemination represents a stronger articulation vis-à-vis non-geminate, while the changes you describe are either spontaneous nasalisation or lenition, seem less likely to me (also /x/ in the IPA is a voiceless consonant, whether velar or uvular, never voiced), so the "splits" you describe (which I would hesitate to call "splits", since that term has a specific meaning in historical linguistics which is not applicable here) seem much more likely to me to be changes relevant to single obstruents (also spontaneous nasalisation of voiced stops of that kind is vanishingly rare, perhaps even unattested: you might want to think of possible conditioning factors for that change).Additionally, is the splitting of former voiced geminates between nasals (cf. [bb] → [mm]) and approximants (cf. [xx] → [ww]) plausible?
What? Firstly that diacritic in <lañ> isn't a macron, it's a tilde. Secondly your question seems a little incoherent: am I to take it from the example that the <n> represent the nasalisation and the tilde representing mid tone has floated onto the <n> for some unspecified reason? And what do you mean when you say "tone for nasalisation", do you mean turning nasalisation into tone (a rather strange and to me unnatural development), introducing tone on nasal vowels, or something else entirely?I'd love to introduce tone to my conlang for nasalization, with a macron representing a following <n> and mid tone in former orthography. Does stacking the diacritics (cf. lañ [lɑ̟̄̃]) suffice?
Seems legit, though I'm a little hesitant on the unconditioned rounding.yangfiretiger121 wrote: ↑21 Nov 2018 03:11The geminate fricative in the third question, which arose from their keeping voiceless and voiced geminates distinct, should've been [ɣɣ], not [xx]. Now that I think about it, medial geminate h-fricatives, such as the aforementioned pair, would be more likely to fortite the initial into a stop, thereby creating stop-fricative sequences, (cf. [xx] → [kx]). Is something like [ɣɣ] → [gɣ] → [gʷ] plausible?
Wait, so this is a question about the IPA? If so then yes you can stack diacritics.Once more, <ñ> is the Romanization of their moraic obstruent. Thus, the script a in [lɑ̟̄̃], historically spelt lan, has the advancing plus sign below it and the nasalizing tilde as well as the mid tone macron above it. Does stacking the tilde with whichever tone mark suffice to add tone to a nasal vowel?
Makes sense to me, and IMHO this looks naturalistic.this_is_an_account wrote: ↑23 Nov 2018 18:35Another question about pitch-accent: In a language where the accented vowel can be high, rising, or falling, and the unaccented vowel is low, can the high and rising tones merge as high, and the low and falling tones merge as low? If this language didn't have unaccented words before this shift, this could be how it develops them.
I see no issue with a merger.
A quick search turns up /wʲ/ in Sucite, Lower Sorbian and Proto-Nenets.
As far as I understand it, /ɥ/ is a labialised palatal approximant (so it might alternatively be written /jʷ/, but since it's phonemic in French it got its own symbol early on), while /w/ is a labialised velar approximant (or at least it is in most languages that have it, so it might alternatively be written /ɰʷ/, but since it's phonemic in English it, as with /ɥ/, got its own symbol early on), so strictly speaking, the difference is similar to the difference between /cʷ/ and /kʷ/, i.e. one of place.
It depends what is meant by 'toneless'. Generally tone languages don't have toneless vowels - every vowel has to be spoken with some tone, after all. The 'default' tone, of vowels that have not been given another tone by a specific process, can indeed be mid, but I (think I) know it's also sometimes low, and I suspect it's probably sometimes high.