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

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 6192
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 01:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

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

Post by Ahzoh » 20 Nov 2018 01:27

So I have the following vowel progressions based on syllable openness or closeness:
Spoiler:
Open syllables:
/a/ > /æ:/ > /æ:/ > /æ/ > /a/
/a:/ > /ɑ:/ > /ɑ:/ > /ɑ/ > /a/
/e/ > /ɛ:/ > /ɛ:/ > /ɛ/ > /e/
/e:/ > /e:/ > /ɪ:/ > /ɪ/ > /i/
/i/ > /ɪ:/ > /ɪ:/ > /ɪ/ > /i/
/i:/ > /i:/ > /əj/ > /əj/ > /aj/
/o/ > /ɔ:/ > /ɔ:/ > /ɔ/ > /o/
/o:/ > /o:/ > /ʊ:/ > /ʊ/ > /u/
/u/ > /ʊ:/ > /ʊ:/ > /ʊ/ > /u/
/u:/ > /u:/ > /əw/ > /əw/ > /aw/

Closed syllables:
/a/ > /æ/ > /æ/ > /æ/ > /a/
/a:/ > /ɑ/ > /ɑ/ > /ɑ/ > /a/
/e/ > /ɛ/ > /ə/ > /ə/ > /ə/
/e:/ > /e/ > /e/ > /e/ > /e/
/i/ > /ɪ/ > /ɨ/ > /ɨ/ > /ə/
/i:/ > /i/ > /i/ > /i/ > /i/
/o/ > /ɔ/ > /ə/ > /ə/ > /ə/
/o:/ > /o/ > /o/ > /o/ > /o/
/u/ > /ʊ/ > /ɨ/ > /ɨ/ > /ə/
/u:/ > /u/ > /u/ > /u/ > /u/
I also have the phonemes /ʔ h ʡ ħ/ which can only occur in coda position (e.g. /muʔ.du/ but also /baħt/.

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-
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Vṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]

User avatar
Pabappa
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 198
Joined: 18 Nov 2017 02:41
Contact:

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

Post by Pabappa » 20 Nov 2018 03:59

I'm skeptical of a language with low tone on stressed syllables 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.
Image

User avatar
Davush
greek
greek
Posts: 500
Joined: 10 Jan 2015 14:10

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

Post by Davush » 20 Nov 2018 13:32

Pabappa wrote:
20 Nov 2018 03:59
I'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.
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.

yangfiretiger121
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 126
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 02:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 20 Nov 2018 23:04

Despite my best efforts, the quoted questions still got skipped. Please note that the moraic sonorant's switch from <ɲ> (/Ɲ/) to <ñ> (/Ñ/) was done for practicality.
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
18 Nov 2018 02:36
My 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?

And, a newbie to boot:
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?
Ddoean's document
Paleofonts (for Linear-B characters)

User avatar
Frislander
runic
runic
Posts: 3106
Joined: 14 May 2016 17:47
Location: The North

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

Post by Frislander » 20 Nov 2018 23:24

yangfiretiger121 wrote:
20 Nov 2018 23:04
Despite my best efforts, these still got skipped:
People's efforts can only be directed onto answering so much. But anyhow, here's my best attempt.
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
18 Nov 2018 02:36
My 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/?
Well yeah, what makes you think it wouldn't be allophonic?
Is it natural for a language to only allow voiced moraic sonorants ([w]) and voiceless moraic obstruents?
Isn't that basically how Japanese works?
Additionally, is the splitting of former voiced geminates between nasals (cf. [bb] → [mm]) and approximants (cf. [xx] → [ww]) plausible?
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).
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?
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?

yangfiretiger121
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 126
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 02:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 21 Nov 2018 03:11

Thanks for the help, mate. Now that you've brought it up, I probably didn't have to reiterate the first (more for confirmation) or second (now, painfully obvious) question.

The 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?

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?
Ddoean's document
Paleofonts (for Linear-B characters)

yangfiretiger121
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 126
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 02:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 23 Nov 2018 08:45

My conlang has gone through <h> ([ħ] → [x]). Is a merger of <ha>↔<ka> (both [xɑ̟]) or a rule excepting <k> from lenition more likely?
Ddoean's document
Paleofonts (for Linear-B characters)

User avatar
Frislander
runic
runic
Posts: 3106
Joined: 14 May 2016 17:47
Location: The North

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

Post by Frislander » 23 Nov 2018 11:10

yangfiretiger121 wrote:
21 Nov 2018 03:11
The 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?
Seems legit, though I'm a little hesitant on the unconditioned rounding.
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?
Wait, so this is a question about the IPA? If so then yes you can stack diacritics.

this_is_an_account
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 84
Joined: 14 Aug 2018 05:33

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

Post by this_is_an_account » 23 Nov 2018 18:35

Another 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.

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4493
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 18:32

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

Post by Creyeditor » 23 Nov 2018 19:00

this_is_an_account wrote:
23 Nov 2018 18:35
Another 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.
Makes sense to me, and IMHO this looks naturalistic.
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]

yangfiretiger121
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 126
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 02:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 24 Nov 2018 01:15

An earlier form of my conlang had [kħ] and [għ]. Affter [ħ] → [x], [gx]'s [x] voiced and lenited to [ɰ] (cf. [gɰ~gᶭ]) before near-front vowels and [w] (cf. [gw~gʷ]) before near-back vowels. Eventually, a [gᶭ] → [gʷ] merger occured.

Is a merger of <ha>↔<ka> (both [xɑ̟]) or a rule excepting <k> from lenition the more likely outcome of [ħ] → [x]?
Ddoean's document
Paleofonts (for Linear-B characters)

User avatar
Frislander
runic
runic
Posts: 3106
Joined: 14 May 2016 17:47
Location: The North

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

Post by Frislander » 24 Nov 2018 02:36

yangfiretiger121 wrote:
24 Nov 2018 01:15
Is a merger of <ha>↔<ka> (both [xɑ̟]) or a rule excepting <k> from lenition the more likely outcome of [ħ] → [x]?
I see no issue with a merger.

yangfiretiger121
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 126
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 02:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 24 Nov 2018 14:58

Is a palatalized labiovelar approzimant ([wʲ]; cf. Wyatt without the diphthong) attested. After all my conlang's [r] → [w] causes it without a rule excepting <ry>.
Ddoean's document
Paleofonts (for Linear-B characters)

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3134
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

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

Post by sangi39 » 24 Nov 2018 15:18

yangfiretiger121 wrote:
24 Nov 2018 14:58
Is a palatalized labiovelar approzimant ([wʲ]; cf. Wyatt without the diphthong) attested. After all my conlang's [r] → [w] causes it without a rule excepting <ry>.
A quick search turns up /wʲ/ in Sucite, Lower Sorbian and Proto-Nenets.
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.

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4493
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 18:32

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

Post by Creyeditor » 24 Nov 2018 18:47

Wait... what is the difference between /ɥ/ (or [ɥ]) and /wʲ/ (or [wʲ]) then? Is it similar to the difference between /k͡p/ [k͡p] and /kʷ/[kʷ]?
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
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3134
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 00:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

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

Post by sangi39 » 24 Nov 2018 19:11

Creyeditor wrote:
24 Nov 2018 18:47
Wait... what is the difference between /ɥ/ (or [ɥ]) and /wʲ/ (or [wʲ]) then? Is it similar to the difference between /k͡p/ [k͡p] and /kʷ/[kʷ]?
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.

/wʲ/ would therefore be a velar approximant that is simultaneously labialised and palatalised, i.e. /ɰʲʷ/, or /ɰᶣ/. Labio-palatalisation is rare, but not unattested, although usually it's an allophonic feature, affecting palatalised consonants before rounded vowels or labialised consonants before front vowels. So here the difference between /ɥ/ and /wʲ/ would presumably, again, be one of place. However, the distinction, I assume, would be audibly minimal, and no language distinguishes the two as distinct phonemes (chances are that /wʲ/ might indeed be [jʷ] for some speakers).
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.

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4493
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 18:32

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

Post by Creyeditor » 24 Nov 2018 19:18

Wow, thanks. That really helped me a lot.
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]

yangfiretiger121
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 126
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 02:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 24 Nov 2018 19:58

In tonal languages, is a toneless vowel the same as a mid-tone vowel? I don't think so, but it never hurts to check.
Ddoean's document
Paleofonts (for Linear-B characters)

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1533
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 18:37

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

Post by Salmoneus » 24 Nov 2018 20:23

yangfiretiger121 wrote:
24 Nov 2018 19:58
In tonal languages, is a toneless vowel the same as a mid-tone vowel? I don't think so, but it never hurts to check.
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.

There is, however, another meaning of 'toneless', which is a vowel that has no phonemic tone quality, not being distinguished from any other tone. These can arise in at least two ways:
- tone can be neutralised in some locations (most simply, for example, in unstressed syllables); if all tones merge to one, then phonemically there is no tone contrast and you could call it 'toneless', though of course in speech it must have some tone;
- or some vowels may have their tone entirely determined by external factors, like adjacent syllables or whole-word contours; these vowels would lack their own phonemic tone and hence be 'toneless', though they would still have some tone when spoken.

User avatar
Zekoslav
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 72
Joined: 07 Oct 2017 15:54

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

Post by Zekoslav » 24 Nov 2018 21:06

I can give a few examples from pitch accent languages, which fit the requirements of having (phonemically) both toned and toneless syllables:

Usually, the accented syllable has a high tone, and unaccented syllables have a low tone: this is the case in Vedic, Ancient Greek, and most Serbo-Croatian dialects. It also the case in some Japanese dialects. This is often complicated by tonal sandhi: either the syllable(s) immediately preceding the high tone may become high/rising in anticipation of the accented syllable's high tone (Serbo-Croatian, most Japanese dialects), or the syllable(s) immediately following the accented syllable may become low/falling in anticipation of the unstressed syllable's low tone (Vedic, Ancient Greek). This may include one (Serbo-Croatian) or more (Japanese) syllables surrounding the accented one. So, phonemically toneless syllables may have many phonetic tones.

In most Japanese dialects, all syllables preceding the accented syllable become high, except if they're word-initial, while syllables following the accented syllable remain low. In other words, this means that the accented syllable is marked by a drop in pitch. There exist words without an accented syllable, i.e. without this drop in pitch - all of their syllables have a high tone, which means that in Japanese, phonemically toneless words actually have a phonetic high tone throughout the word (again, except the initial syllable)!

In Slovene and my own dialect of Croatian, something similar exists (even if it's completely unrelated except typologically and maybe areally), except that both a drop and a rise in pitch are phonemic: in one class of words, syllable before the accent are high, and those after are low (phonemically falling pitch accent), and in another class of words, syllables before the accent are low, and those after are high (phonemically rising pitch accent). My dialect actually kind of has mid syllables as the norm: syllables before the accented one are mid, then on the accented one there is a slight drop in pitch, and then the pitch either remains low (falling accent) or becomes high (rising accent).

If a tonal language has all of high, mid and low tones as phonemic, then I'd guess a phonemically toneless syllable has a good chance of being mid - but I'd have to check what really happens in such languages. Most are spoken in West Africa, so that's a good area to research.
Languages:
:hrv: [:D], :bih: :srb: [;)], :eng: [:D], :fra: [:|], :lat: [:(], :deu: [:'(]

A linguistics enthusiast who would like to make a conlang, but can't decide what to call what.

- Tewanian languages
- Guide to Slavic accentuation

Post Reply