OK, couple of things.Random8k wrote: ↑04 Jan 2019 06:53I just wanted feedback on this sound inventory, if it seems naturalistic or not.I'm making another protolang while I think about what I want to do with my first one.
I apologize if this is formatted incorrectly as well!
Plosive: /p b t c ɟ/ <p b t c/k j>
Nasal: /m ɱ n ɲ ŋ/ <m ɱ n na ng>
Tap/Flap: /ɾ/ <r>
Fricative: /ɸ θ s x/ <f th s ch>
Approximant: /ʋ j/ <v y>
Lateral Approximant: /l/ <l>
Vowels: /e ɤ o æ a/ <e oe o ae a>
Firstly overall I think this is fine. The absence of velars is perhaps a little weird, but I assume *k became the velar fricative, in which case this is fine because you have an explanation for the gap. I also don't mind the high-mid instead of high vowels, though I wouldn't be surprised if speakers sometimes pronounced them as true high /i ɯ u/ or similar, which would be what tends to happen.
The one thing which sticks out to me as odd is the labiodental nasal. Firstly contrastive labiodentals other than the fricatives are practically unheard of, and from an auditory perspective you could justify this being there if you otherwise had a large inventory with loads of labiodental sounds, but you don't, you just have this and the approximant, though I would expect the bilabial fricative to shift to labiodental pretty quickly. I'd say with the right phonotactics you could have /ɱ/ as a realisation of /mʋ/, but in order for it to be its own thing and fit naturally I'd say redesign the entire thing to give it a full labiodental series.