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

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2672
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

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

Post by Omzinesý » 12 Apr 2019 17:56

I thank Zekoslav, Creyeditor, Ná'oolkiłí & Frislander for answering my question on consonant clusters.
I still didn't find illumination but thinking about what you said may bring it closer.

yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 248
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 12 Apr 2019 18:31

náʼoolkiłí wrote:
12 Apr 2019 14:21
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
12 Apr 2019 01:41
One of my conlangs has dental, dental ejective, and nasal dental contour clicks. With my preference to [ʇ] for the dental click, are [ʇ͡s], [ʇ͡s'], and [ʇ̃͜s] acceptable transcriptions thereof? If not, what are?
Why not simply [ʇ ʇ' ʇ̃]? What is the [s​] part supposed to represent? My understanding of clicks is that if they have any affrication it will be dorsal.
This language is spoken, in part, by anthropomorphic snakes, who I don't think can produce velar sounds because of their tongue being in a sheath. I'd like the former labial clicks to be different than the native dental clicks ([ʇ ʇʰ ʇ̃]), if possible. Aspiration's the snakes' substitute for voicing. Although, I s'pose [ʇ͡ħ ʇ͡ħ' ʇ̃͡ħ] may work.

Additionally, what are the potential results coalescence with following vowel inventory: /ɑ ɛ œ ɯ u/?
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1664
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

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

Post by Salmoneus » 13 Apr 2019 15:02

If they can't make velar sounds, by definition they can't make clicks, which are velar sounds.

yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 248
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 13 Apr 2019 15:14

Salmoneus wrote:
13 Apr 2019 15:02
If they can't make velar sounds, by definition they can't make clicks, which are velar sounds.
Point. Forgoing mass elision, what are somewhat natural changes for the labial ([ʘ ʘ̬ ʘ̃]), dental ([ʇ ʇ̬ ʇ̃]), and alveolar ([ʗʰ ʗ̃ˀ]) clicks? According to Wikipedia, it's very hard to unlearn clicks/not use clicks once they're learned. I've had this language's speakers glottalize mora-onset labial nasals and plosives. Also, [k g] are pharyngeal stops, with [g] being ejective.
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3298
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

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

Post by sangi39 » 13 Apr 2019 16:44

yangfiretiger121 wrote:
13 Apr 2019 15:14
Salmoneus wrote:
13 Apr 2019 15:02
If they can't make velar sounds, by definition they can't make clicks, which are velar sounds.
Point. Forgoing mass elision, what are somewhat natural changes for the labial ([ʘ ʘ̬ ʘ̃]), dental ([ʇ ʇ̬ ʇ̃]), and alveolar ([ʗʰ ʗ̃ˀ]) clicks? According to Wikipedia, it's very hard to unlearn clicks/not use clicks once they're learned. I've had this language's speakers glottalize mora-onset labial nasals and plosives. Also, [k g] are pharyngeal stops, with [g] being ejective.
IIRC, where click loss occurs, clicks retain things like voicing, nasality, ejectivity (although I've also heard somewhere that in languages that lack ejectives and ejective clicks, clicks might also become ejectives regardless, but I haven't seen anything yet that backs that up), etc. but become they become, roughly, their pulmonic "counterpart", except for alveolar clicks which apparently more readily become velar consonants, which at some point someone is going to have to explain to me.

Anyway, your labial clicks might become /p b m/, the dental ones /ts dz n/ and the alveolar ones either /tʰ nˀ/ or /kʰ ŋˀ/ (but you've said they can't produce velars, so maybe not the latter)
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.

yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 248
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 13 Apr 2019 17:55

sangi39 wrote:
13 Apr 2019 16:44
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
13 Apr 2019 15:14
Salmoneus wrote:
13 Apr 2019 15:02
If they can't make velar sounds, by definition they can't make clicks, which are velar sounds.
Point. Forgoing mass elision, what are somewhat natural changes for the labial ([ʘ ʘ̬ ʘ̃]), dental ([ʇ ʇ̬ ʇ̃]), and alveolar ([ʗʰ ʗ̃ˀ]) clicks? According to Wikipedia, it's very hard to unlearn clicks/not use clicks once they're learned. I've had this language's speakers glottalize mora-onset labial nasals and plosives. Also, [k g] are pharyngeal stops, with [g] being ejective.
IIRC, where click loss occurs, clicks retain things like voicing, nasality, ejectivity (although I've also heard somewhere that in languages that lack ejectives and ejective clicks, clicks might also become ejectives regardless, but I haven't seen anything yet that backs that up), etc. but become they become, roughly, their pulmonic "counterpart", except for alveolar clicks which apparently more readily become velar consonants, which at some point someone is going to have to explain to me.

Anyway, your labial clicks might become /p b m/, the dental ones /ts dz n/ and the alveolar ones either /tʰ nˀ/ or /kʰ ŋˀ/ (but you've said they can't produce velars, so maybe not the latter)
The anthro snakes can't produce labials, such as [m], due to absence of lips or voiced sounds, such as [d], due to absence of vocal folds either. Thus, their glotalization of [m p b] and, likely, [ʘ ʘ̬ ʘ̃]. They've substituted ejectives for voiced sounds as well (cf. [d → t']). Therefor, /ʇ ʇ̬ ʇ̃ → t͡s t͡s' n̥/ and /ʗʰ ʗ̃ˀ → tʰ~θ n̥ˀ/ seem more likely.
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3298
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

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

Post by sangi39 » 13 Apr 2019 18:45

yangfiretiger121 wrote:
13 Apr 2019 17:55
sangi39 wrote:
13 Apr 2019 16:44
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
13 Apr 2019 15:14
Salmoneus wrote:
13 Apr 2019 15:02
If they can't make velar sounds, by definition they can't make clicks, which are velar sounds.
Point. Forgoing mass elision, what are somewhat natural changes for the labial ([ʘ ʘ̬ ʘ̃]), dental ([ʇ ʇ̬ ʇ̃]), and alveolar ([ʗʰ ʗ̃ˀ]) clicks? According to Wikipedia, it's very hard to unlearn clicks/not use clicks once they're learned. I've had this language's speakers glottalize mora-onset labial nasals and plosives. Also, [k g] are pharyngeal stops, with [g] being ejective.
IIRC, where click loss occurs, clicks retain things like voicing, nasality, ejectivity (although I've also heard somewhere that in languages that lack ejectives and ejective clicks, clicks might also become ejectives regardless, but I haven't seen anything yet that backs that up), etc. but become they become, roughly, their pulmonic "counterpart", except for alveolar clicks which apparently more readily become velar consonants, which at some point someone is going to have to explain to me.

Anyway, your labial clicks might become /p b m/, the dental ones /ts dz n/ and the alveolar ones either /tʰ nˀ/ or /kʰ ŋˀ/ (but you've said they can't produce velars, so maybe not the latter)
The anthro snakes can't produce labials, such as [m], due to absence of lips or voiced sounds, such as [d], due to absence of vocal folds either. Thus, their glotalization of [m p b] and, likely, [ʘ ʘ̬ ʘ̃]. They've substituted ejectives for voiced sounds as well (cf. [d → t']). Therefor, /ʇ ʇ̬ ʇ̃ → t͡s t͡s' n̥/ and /ʗʰ ʗ̃ˀ → tʰ~θ n̥ˀ/ seem more likely.
If they're particularly snake-like, I'm not 100% sure how likely it is that they'd be able to produce ejectives either, or anything further back that alveolars. The entrance to the trachea in snakes, which is where the tongue sits as well when retracted (the "sheath" you mention), is notably forward in the mouth in order to aid in eating, especially when swallowing particularly large food (since they can't chew their food they have to eat everything in one go).

I'm not sure, bearing that in mind, that snakes would either be able to produce them, or if they'd be audibly different enough from pulmonics to be audibly different.

You could retract the entrance to the trachea and have it back in the throat, as in humans, but then that would also retract the "sheath" for the tongue, allowing them to produce velars.
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.

yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 248
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 13 Apr 2019 19:06

sangi39 wrote:
13 Apr 2019 18:45
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
13 Apr 2019 17:55
sangi39 wrote:
13 Apr 2019 16:44
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
13 Apr 2019 15:14
Salmoneus wrote:
13 Apr 2019 15:02
If they can't make velar sounds, by definition they can't make clicks, which are velar sounds.
Point. Forgoing mass elision, what are somewhat natural changes for the labial ([ʘ ʘ̬ ʘ̃]), dental ([ʇ ʇ̬ ʇ̃]), and alveolar ([ʗʰ ʗ̃ˀ]) clicks? According to Wikipedia, it's very hard to unlearn clicks/not use clicks once they're learned. I've had this language's speakers glottalize mora-onset labial nasals and plosives. Also, [k g] are pharyngeal stops, with [g] being ejective.
IIRC, where click loss occurs, clicks retain things like voicing, nasality, ejectivity (although I've also heard somewhere that in languages that lack ejectives and ejective clicks, clicks might also become ejectives regardless, but I haven't seen anything yet that backs that up), etc. but become they become, roughly, their pulmonic "counterpart", except for alveolar clicks which apparently more readily become velar consonants, which at some point someone is going to have to explain to me.

Anyway, your labial clicks might become /p b m/, the dental ones /ts dz n/ and the alveolar ones either /tʰ nˀ/ or /kʰ ŋˀ/ (but you've said they can't produce velars, so maybe not the latter)
The anthro snakes can't produce labials, such as [m], due to absence of lips or voiced sounds, such as [d], due to absence of vocal folds either. Thus, their glotalization of [m p b] and, likely, [ʘ ʘ̬ ʘ̃]. They've substituted ejectives for voiced sounds as well (cf. [d → t']). Therefor, /ʇ ʇ̬ ʇ̃ → t͡s t͡s' n̥/ and /ʗʰ ʗ̃ˀ → tʰ~θ n̥ˀ/ seem more likely.
If they're particularly snake-like, I'm not 100% sure how likely it is that they'd be able to produce ejectives either, or anything further back that alveolars. The entrance to the trachea in snakes, which is where the tongue sits as well when retracted (the "sheath" you mention), is notably forward in the mouth in order to aid in eating, especially when swallowing particularly large food (since they can't chew their food they have to eat everything in one go).

I'm not sure, bearing that in mind, that snakes would either be able to produce them, or if they'd be audibly different enough from pulmonics to be audibly different.

You could retract the entrance to the trachea and have it back in the throat, as in humans, but then that would also retract the "sheath" for the tongue, allowing them to produce velars.
Scientifically, hissing is the forceful ejection of air. Thus—currently, a sound like [t'] is heard with an extra [ s] at the end (cf. [ts]/[t͡s]) when spoken by an anthro snake.

Could these same speakers produce back unrounded vowels, such as [ɑ], without a retracted tongue sheath?
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

Salmoneus
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1664
Joined: 19 Sep 2011 19:37

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

Post by Salmoneus » 13 Apr 2019 23:00

Hissing (as a language sound, as in /s/, etc) is not just the ejection of air - it's specifically the channelling of air through a groove in a wide tongue and its direction into contact with a further articulator.

[I don't see what any of this has to do with ejectives, mind you]

I'm not sure snakes are able to hiss (they make a sound we hear as hissing, but it's not necessarily made the same way!). I also don't think anything with a snake-like mouth would be able to pronounce stops - I think their tongues are probably too narrow relative to their mouths, and they'd just be saying /l/. Or however you transcribe two simultaneous laterals, given that snakes have forked tongues...

Plus, of course, you'd have to question whether snake tongues are manipulable and strong enough to make lingual stops and fricatives and vowels at all.

Evidence that they're not comes from the fact that snakes don't talk.

yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 248
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 14 Apr 2019 00:13

Okay. Thanks, guys. I'm shifting it to a more setting-correct language because the Nagaji, the speakers I was referring to, aren't anthro snakes. Rather, they were once human and, thus, can produce every sound we can. However, I still love the idea of only voiceless consonants being native to the language. Do rounded vowels, such as [ u], make much sense in such a language?
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

User avatar
WeepingElf
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 193
Joined: 23 Feb 2016 18:42
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
Contact:

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

Post by WeepingElf » 14 Apr 2019 13:02

yangfiretiger121 wrote:
14 Apr 2019 00:13
Okay. Thanks, guys. I'm shifting it to a more setting-correct language because the Nagaji, the speakers I was referring to, aren't anthro snakes. Rather, they were once human and, thus, can produce every sound we can. However, I still love the idea of only voiceless consonants being native to the language. Do rounded vowels, such as [ u], make much sense in such a language?
They do - rounding has nothing to do with voicing.
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf

yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 248
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 14 Apr 2019 14:52

Originally, the language had two distinct sounds for its <χ>; [ŋ̊k] (formerly, <χκ>) mora-initially and [ŋ̊] mora-finally/in coda. Could it have undergone [ŋ̊k → ʞ]?

Considering the language's high unrounded vowel is [ɨ], do I have justification for only palatalizing alveolars?

The language has three vowels, at least, one of which is ambiguous. The i-vowel above is the only one I'm sure about, with the others being an a-vowel and an e-vowel. The first three-vowel system I thought of was /ɐ ə ɨ/, but I shied away from it because I'd like the language to have, at least, one non-central vowel. Is there an adequate way to transcribe an ambiguous mid-front, an ambiguous mid-back, or an ambiguous low-back vowel?
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

User avatar
eldin raigmore
korean
korean
Posts: 6387
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 19:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

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

Post by eldin raigmore » 15 Apr 2019 04:12

Ahzoh wrote:
20 Mar 2019 20:54
eldin raigmore wrote:
15 Mar 2019 01:57
Look up “Why VSOP is the Ideal Word Order”.
https://philpapers.org/rec/HETTPM
That link literally shows nothing and it makes me sad because I actually wanted to read it.
The presentative movement or why the ideal word order is VSOP
Robert Hetzron
In Charles N. Li (ed.), Word Order and Word Order Change. University of Texas Press. pp. 346--388 (1975)

It works for me.

The site is an abstracts database, and they don’t happen to have this actual abstract, though they do have some metadata and indexing data about it. Is that what you meant by “literally nothing”?

User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5769
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 02:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

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

Post by Ahzoh » 15 Apr 2019 08:04

eldin raigmore wrote:
15 Apr 2019 04:12
Is that what you meant by “literally nothing”?
The link had no abstract, so it had no content. Really, just a glorified redirect page.
How might it be diachronically or synchronically possible for a morphophonological process to occur where a root ending in a nasal develops a voiced stop of the same POA, like?:
jene "bronze" becomes jend in the construct state and not jen.

But this process might allow -ŋɟ -ŋg -nɦ (< ns)

I suppose the best way this could work is for a root to be originally something like jende > jenne > jene but that would interfere with other words that allow geminate nasals word-medially. Also seems like something that would happen word-finally and not medially.
Image Ӯсцьӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Wərxažu (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]

Ælfwine
roman
roman
Posts: 932
Joined: 21 Sep 2015 01:28
Location: New Jersey

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

Post by Ælfwine » 16 Apr 2019 03:54

I am introducing some front rounded vowels to Crimean Gothic, and after thinking about how it will be represented in the orthography, I have decided that <ё> and <ю> are pronounced /jo/ and /ju/ initially and after vowels, and /ø/ and /y/ respectively elsewhere.

Now, to get this state of affairs, would it be possible that /iu~iw/ monophthongizes to /y/ while /ju/ remains? (/eu/ > /ø/ is less of a problem as it is unlikely to be mixed with /jo/)
My Blog
Current Projects:
Crimean Gothic — A Gothic language spoken in Crimea (duh)
Pelsodian — A Romance language spoken around Lake Balaton
Jezik Panoski — A Slavic language spoken in the same area
An unnamed Semitic language spoken in the Caucus.

User avatar
HJH
hieroglyphic
hieroglyphic
Posts: 41
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 13:00

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

Post by HJH » 16 Apr 2019 18:40

What is a rough minimum number of glyphs that would be needed for a functioning naturalistic logography?
:con: Casia- Grammar- Thread

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 11653
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

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

Post by shimobaatar » 16 Apr 2019 22:23

HJH wrote:
16 Apr 2019 18:40
What is a rough minimum number of glyphs that would be needed for a functioning naturalistic logography?
A claim that I've heard/read several times in the past is that you need to know 2 or 3 thousand characters to be able to read through an average Chinese newspaper. Does anyone know if there's any actual basis for that number, or if this is just one of those things that people say?

User avatar
spanick
roman
roman
Posts: 1041
Joined: 11 May 2017 01:47
Location: California

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

Post by spanick » 16 Apr 2019 23:04

HJH wrote:
16 Apr 2019 18:40
What is a rough minimum number of glyphs that would be needed for a functioning naturalistic logography?
Sumerian Cuneiform had about 1,000. Akkadian Cuneiform about 600. Hittite less than 400. It really depends on how heavily you balance the ideographic, semantic, and phonetic functions of the logography.

User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5769
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 02:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

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

Post by Ahzoh » 17 Apr 2019 18:55

I want to create a language with 100 or more vowels with the vowels as distinguishable from each other as naturalistically possible for such a large system. There is at least creaky vs modal distinction, short vs. long, and nasal vs. oral.

I thought of this inventory:

Code: Select all

i y ɨ ɯ u
e ø ə ɤ o
æ   ɐ   ɑ
But others have pointed out problems like /ɨ ə/ not being distinctive enough from /ɯ ɤ/, especially with creaky voice and /ə ə:/ being an unstable distinction.

Anyone got any ideas?
Image Ӯсцьӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Wərxažu (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]

Ælfwine
roman
roman
Posts: 932
Joined: 21 Sep 2015 01:28
Location: New Jersey

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

Post by Ælfwine » 17 Apr 2019 19:28

The vowel space tends to be the most open with "close" vowels, so I'd get rid of schwa at least.
My Blog
Current Projects:
Crimean Gothic — A Gothic language spoken in Crimea (duh)
Pelsodian — A Romance language spoken around Lake Balaton
Jezik Panoski — A Slavic language spoken in the same area
An unnamed Semitic language spoken in the Caucus.

Post Reply