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

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
holbuzvala
sinic
sinic
Posts: 211
Joined: 01 Jan 2017 14:03

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

Post by holbuzvala » 02 Jun 2019 20:11

@Reyzadren

Is it right to call it ‘passivisation’ though, in trigger langs, if there is no valence change? It is not more so a question of ‘focus-shifting’?

So I have this phonology for a proto-lang.

Code: Select all

                        lbl	alvlr	pltl	vlr	glttl
stop	plain	        p	t		k	
	labialised	pʷ	tʷ		kʷ	
	palatilised	pʲ	tʲ		kʲ	
(af)fricative	plain	ɸ  β	t͡s  s	ç	ɣ	h
	labialised		t͡sʷ sʷ			
	palatilised		t͡sʲ sʲ			
nasal		        m	n		ŋ	
liquid			        l	j		
trills			        r̥ r
I was wondering: should I include a voiceless velar fricative /x/ and a voiceless lateral fricative /ɬ/ to complement /ɣ/ and /l/ in the same way that /r̥/ currently complements /r/?

Options:
1. Leave it as it is.
2. Add /ɬ/
3. Add /ɬ/ and /x/

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 » 02 Jun 2019 22:56

I'd choose option 3.
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf

User avatar
Reyzadren
greek
greek
Posts: 458
Joined: 14 May 2017 10:39
Contact:

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

Post by Reyzadren » 03 Jun 2019 00:55

holbuzvala wrote:
02 Jun 2019 20:11
@Reyzadren

Is it right to call it ‘passivisation’ though, in trigger langs, if there is no valence change? It is not more so a question of ‘focus-shifting’?
Triggers aren't focuses. Some triggers do focus, but not all (eg, the triggers in my conlang don't focus at all). Also, most trigger natlangs use the term "passive" in their own grammar/perspective, and I shall use this terminology instead of the complicated one from linguistics.
Image Soundcloud Profile | Image griuskant conlang

User avatar
DesEsseintes
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4581
Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16

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

Post by DesEsseintes » 03 Jun 2019 03:31

holbuzvala wrote:
02 Jun 2019 20:11
So I have this phonology for a proto-lang.
Spoiler:

Code: Select all

                        lbl	alvlr	pltl	vlr	glttl
stop	plain	        p	t		k	
	labialised	pʷ	tʷ		kʷ	
	palatilised	pʲ	tʲ		kʲ	
(af)fricative	plain	ɸ  β	t͡s  s	ç	ɣ	h
	labialised		t͡sʷ sʷ			
	palatilised		t͡sʲ sʲ			
nasal		        m	n		ŋ	
liquid			        l	j		
trills			        r̥ r
I was wondering: should I include a voiceless velar fricative /x/ and a voiceless lateral fricative /ɬ/ to complement /ɣ/ and /l/ in the same way that /r̥/ currently complements /r/?

Options:
1. Leave it as it is.
2. Add /ɬ/
3. Add /ɬ/ and /x/
Option 2.

Having /ɣ/ and no /x/ here would be nice, and a voicing contrast in laterals is just, I don’t know, one of the best things in life?

User avatar
Zekoslav
sinic
sinic
Posts: 222
Joined: 07 Oct 2017 16:54

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

Post by Zekoslav » 03 Jun 2019 14:07

I agree, take option 2. If you still want symmetry, have /h/ be the voiceless pair of /ɣ/.

@ "trigger languages". I've read multiple times, Here and on the Other Board, that it's not quite about focus, and there was that big discussion about "conlang trigger alignment" and "real trigger alignment", sparked by a series of posts on the Ayeri blog. In the series the author concluded that "real trigger alignment" is actually quite differen from what conlangers assume(d). However, I haven't been able to find good info on what trigger alignment actually is about. What is actually the main semantic/pragmatic role of different triggers, if focus is an oversimplification?
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

User avatar
Davush
greek
greek
Posts: 507
Joined: 10 Jan 2015 14:10

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

Post by Davush » 03 Jun 2019 19:07

Quick tonogenesis question:

Let's say Classical Qutrussan has the word /qáddzi/ (acute = stress, where stress involves a higher pitch).

This later becomes /kaddʑ/ with loss of final vowel. Now, it seems the word could take one two routes regarding pitch. Either, it retains high-pitch due to the previously stressed syllable, OR it becomes low pitch under the influence of final voiced-consonant (which eventually becomes unvoiced).

Is one more naturalistic than the other, or am I more or less free to decide upon the outcome myself here? Tonogenesis seems very idiosyncratic across languages...

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4490
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

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

Post by Creyeditor » 03 Jun 2019 20:57

There are several ways, that I see:
1. Onset voicing: high tone because voiceless /k/
2. Stress(a): High tone because stressed
3. Stress(b): Falling tone because stressed-unstressed
4. Coda voicing: Low tone because voiced /ddz/
5. Coda manner: High tone because stop /d/

You can go for either option or a combination thereof, e.g. onset voicing plus coda voicing could give a falling tone, too. Just be consistent about it in your conlang. Any more specific questions?
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
Reyzadren
greek
greek
Posts: 458
Joined: 14 May 2017 10:39
Contact:

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

Post by Reyzadren » 04 Jun 2019 00:27

Zekoslav wrote:
03 Jun 2019 14:07
@ "trigger languages". I've read multiple times, Here and on the Other Board, that it's not quite about focus, and there was that big discussion about "conlang trigger alignment" and "real trigger alignment", sparked by a series of posts on the Ayeri blog. In the series the author concluded that "real trigger alignment" is actually quite differen from what conlangers assume(d). However, I haven't been able to find good info on what trigger alignment actually is about. What is actually the main semantic/pragmatic role of different triggers, if focus is an oversimplification?
The "conlang trigger alignment" and "real trigger alignment" is the same thing. Not sure what they used to assume, but nowadays many conlangers still wrongly claim that they are different, or that the trigger alignment doesn't exist at all. (Up to you to believe them or not)

Surprisingly, wikipedia has a good descriptive article about the trigger alignment. If you don't want to read that long page, even the morphosyntactic alignment summary is enough (Types of Alignment, 4).

EDIT: I just re-read the long article today. It seems that somebody recently added a new section there. Ignore section 3.3, that section is poorly worded.
Image Soundcloud Profile | Image griuskant conlang

yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 234
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 04 Jun 2019 03:01

Thank you for your help thus far.

My language once achieved an eight vowel system, in which [ u] palatalized coronal stops and fricatives due to being a high vowel, through coalescence. I have raised [ɛ̥ -> i̥] and shifted palatalization there since. Simultaneously with that change, I made ι and υ semivowels with <υV> able to occur after, at least, some non-alveolar stops because alveolar stops can take <ιV> sequences and I like the idea having secondary articulations affect different groups of consonants. Are <υV> sequences most likely to appear after just bilabial stops, just velar stops, or both types of stops? <V> in <ιV> represents [ɑ(ː) ə(ː) o(ː) u(ː)] because [i̥(ː)] would merge into <Cι>, where <C> represents <τ δ ϲ Ϫ>.
Last edited by yangfiretiger121 on 04 Jun 2019 15:58, edited 3 times in total.
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

User avatar
Zekoslav
sinic
sinic
Posts: 222
Joined: 07 Oct 2017 16:54

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

Post by Zekoslav » 04 Jun 2019 12:42

Reyzadren wrote:
04 Jun 2019 00:27
Zekoslav wrote:
03 Jun 2019 14:07
@ "trigger languages". I've read multiple times, Here and on the Other Board, that it's not quite about focus, and there was that big discussion about "conlang trigger alignment" and "real trigger alignment", sparked by a series of posts on the Ayeri blog. In the series the author concluded that "real trigger alignment" is actually quite differen from what conlangers assume(d). However, I haven't been able to find good info on what trigger alignment actually is about. What is actually the main semantic/pragmatic role of different triggers, if focus is an oversimplification?
The "conlang trigger alignment" and "real trigger alignment" is the same thing. Not sure what they used to assume, but nowadays many conlangers still wrongly claim that they are different, or that the trigger alignment doesn't exist at all. (Up to you to believe them or not)

Surprisingly, wikipedia has a good descriptive article about the trigger alignment. If you don't want to read that long page, even the morphosyntactic alignment summary is enough (Types of Alignment, 4).

EDIT: I just re-read the long article today. It seems that somebody recently added a new section there. Ignore section 3.3, that section is poorly worded.
Thank you
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

Keenir
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2383
Joined: 22 May 2012 03:05

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

Post by Keenir » 04 Jun 2019 17:08

yangfiretiger121 wrote:
04 Jun 2019 03:01
Thank you for your help thus far.

My language once achieved an eight vowel system, in which [ u] palatalized coronal stops and fricatives due to being a high vowel, through coalescence. I have raised [ɛ̥ -> i̥] and shifted palatalization there since. Simultaneously with that change, I made ι and υ semivowels with <υV> able to occur after, at least, some non-alveolar stops because alveolar stops can take <ιV> sequences and I like the idea having secondary articulations affect different groups of consonants. Are <υV> sequences most likely to appear after just bilabial stops, just velar stops, or both types of stops? <V> in <ιV> represents [ɑ(ː) ə(ː) o(ː) u(ː)] because [i̥(ː)] would merge into <Cι>, where <C> represents <τ δ ϲ Ϫ>.
unless I missed the question (entirely possible), this might go in What Did You Accomplish Today - kudos on the work.
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799

yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 234
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 04 Jun 2019 17:24

Keenir wrote:
04 Jun 2019 17:08
yangfiretiger121 wrote:
04 Jun 2019 03:01
Thank you for your help thus far.

My language once achieved an eight vowel system, in which [ u] palatalized coronal stops and fricatives due to being a high vowel, through coalescence. I have raised [ɛ̥ -> i̥] and shifted palatalization there since. Simultaneously with that change, I made ι and υ semivowels with <υV> able to occur after, at least, some non-alveolar stops because alveolar stops can take <ιV> sequences and I like the idea having secondary articulations affect different groups of consonants. Are <υV> sequences most likely to appear after just bilabial stops, just velar stops, or both types of stops? <V> in <ιV> represents [ɑ(ː) ə(ː) o(ː) u(ː)] because [i̥(ː)] would merge into <Cι>, where <C> represents <τ δ ϲ Ϫ>.
unless I missed the question (entirely possible), this might go in What Did You Accomplish Today - kudos on the work.
Thanks for the compliment. But, you've missed the question, which is bold-faced above.
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

User avatar
Dormouse559
moderator
moderator
Posts: 2791
Joined: 10 Nov 2012 20:52
Location: California

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

Post by Dormouse559 » 04 Jun 2019 20:04

I don't fully understand the question. It appears to be about phonology, but you've presented a good chunk of the background info through orthography. For phonology questions, it's best to stick to the underlying sounds.

For example, you say at one point that <ι> and <υ> become semivowels. Which ones? What sounds do the semivowels come from? You later imply these letters also represent secondary articulations. Which secondary articulations? How do they relate to the semivowels?

yangfiretiger121
sinic
sinic
Posts: 234
Joined: 17 Jun 2018 03:04

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

Post by yangfiretiger121 » 05 Jun 2019 03:00

Dormouse559 wrote:
04 Jun 2019 20:04
I don't fully understand the question. It appears to be about phonology, but you've presented a good chunk of the background info through orthography. For phonology questions, it's best to stick to the underlying sounds.

For example, you say at one point that <ι> and <υ> become semivowels. Which ones? What sounds do the semivowels come from? You later imply these letters also represent secondary articulations. Which secondary articulations? How do they relate to the semivowels?
The language's original tree vowel system, which involved hiatus, was [ɑ ɛ̥ u]. After coalescing the <VV> sequences, it became [ɑ ɐ̥ ɐ ə̥ ə o u]. Then, [ u] started palatalizing [t d s z -> ȶɕ ȡʑ ɕ ʑ] due to being a high vowel. The semivowel change came because I want [w] in the language. Thus, I raised [ɛ̥ -> i̥] to enable <ι> to yield [j̊] before vowels, which is when <υ> yields [w] as well. Yet, I failed to explain that I shifted palatalization to <ι> because having the same letter labialize/velarize and palatalize doesn't make much sense, especially when the changes affect different consonants. I should've explained that <CιV> sequences, such as <τια>, yield <PV> sequences, such as [ȶɕɑ], rather than <PιV> sequences, such as [ȶɕi̥ɑ]. Similarly, <CυV> sequences, like <βυα>, yield <LV> sequences, like [bwɑ], rather than <LυV> sequences, like [bwuɑ]. Are <υV> sequences most likely to appear after just bilabial stops, just velar stops, or both types of stops?

My lack of clarity at times is due to my autism because I know what I'm trying to say and think you guys will understand what I write how its meant to be understood.
Alien conlangs (Font may be needed for Vai symbols)

Keenir
mayan
mayan
Posts: 2383
Joined: 22 May 2012 03:05

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

Post by Keenir » 05 Jun 2019 17:20

yangfiretiger121 wrote:
05 Jun 2019 03:00
Dormouse559 wrote:
04 Jun 2019 20:04
I don't fully understand the question. It appears to be about phonology, but you've presented a good chunk of the background info through orthography. For phonology questions, it's best to stick to the underlying sounds.

For example, you say at one point that <ι> and <υ> become semivowels. Which ones? What sounds do the semivowels come from? You later imply these letters also represent secondary articulations. Which secondary articulations? How do they relate to the semivowels?
My lack of clarity at times is due to my autism because I know what I'm trying to say and think you guys will understand what I write how its meant to be understood.
Well, if it helps any, you seem to be very high-functioning autistic, like some of the rest of us here. Some of the trickiness may not be from autism, but from being only partway through learning the difference/distinction between Orthography and Phonology (the better one knows the difference, the better - i speak from experience on that)
At work on Apaan: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4799

holbuzvala
sinic
sinic
Posts: 211
Joined: 01 Jan 2017 14:03

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

Post by holbuzvala » 05 Jun 2019 17:43

A question on romanisation: I have in the spoiler IPA on the left, and my romanisation thus far on the right. Ones I'm not sure about or don't have a symbol for have a question mark.

Code: Select all

p   p
b   b
t   t
d   d
k   k
g   g
pʷ  pw
bʷ  bw
tʷ  tw
dʷ  dw
kʷ  kw
gʷ  gw
pʲ  pj
bʲ  bj
tʲ  tj
dʲ  dj
kʲ  kj
gʲ  gj
t͡s  ts
d͡z  dz
s   s
z   z
t͡sʷ tsw
d͡zʷ dzw
sʷ  sw
zʷ  zw
t͡ʃ  ?tsj
d͡ʒ  ?dzj
ʃ   ?sj
ʒ   ?zj
ʋ̥  ?f/hw
ʋ   ?v/w
j   j
ç   ?hj
ʝ   ?
ɣ   ?
h   h
m   m
n   n
ŋ   ń
ɬ   ?hl
l   l
r̥   ?ŕ/hr
r   r
All suggestions welcome. I know <tsj> for the voiceless palatal affricative is a bit ugly, but I don't mind it - it's in keeping with using the <j> to mark the palatilised consonants. The real troublespots are the voiceless trill, lateral fricative, voiced and voiceless palatal fricatives, and the velar fricative.

I'm not averse to accent-marks (see the velar nasal and voiceless trill - I might do the same for the palato/alveolar (af)fricatives with <(t)ś (d)ź>).

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2665
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

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

Post by Omzinesý » 05 Jun 2019 18:12

holbuzvala wrote:
05 Jun 2019 17:43
A question on romanisation: I have in the spoiler IPA on the left, and my romanisation thus far on the right. Ones I'm not sure about or don't have a symbol for have a question mark.

Code: Select all

p   p
b   b
t   t
d   d
k   k
g   g
pʷ  pw
bʷ  bw
tʷ  tw
dʷ  dw
kʷ  kw
gʷ  gw
pʲ  pj
bʲ  bj
tʲ  tj
dʲ  dj
kʲ  kj
gʲ  gj
t͡s  ts
d͡z  dz
s   s
z   z
t͡sʷ tsw
d͡zʷ dzw
sʷ  sw
zʷ  zw
t͡ʃ  ?tsj
d͡ʒ  ?dzj
ʃ   ?sj
ʒ   ?zj
ʋ̥  ?f/hw
ʋ   ?v/w
j   j
ç   ?hj
ʝ   ?
ɣ   ?
h   h
m   m
n   n
ŋ   ń
ɬ   ?hl
l   l
r̥   ?ŕ/hr
r   r
All suggestions welcome. I know <tsj> for the voiceless palatal affricative is a bit ugly, but I don't mind it - it's in keeping with using the <j> to mark the palatilised consonants. The real troublespots are the voiceless trill, lateral fricative, voiced and voiceless palatal fricatives, and the velar fricative.

I'm not averse to accent-marks (see the velar nasal and voiceless trill - I might do the same for the palato/alveolar (af)fricatives with <(t)ś (d)ź>).
Is the thing you mark with C+w labialization, velarization, or labio-velarization?

Many Native American languages use <ł> to mark the lateral fricative. In Polish it has been a velarized lateral, nowadays its [w] though.

<rh> or <hr> is maybe the most typical way to mark a sonorant being devoiced. Few languages have them, so there is no convention.

You dont use the letter <c> at all?

<q> for /ɣ/ doesnt sound horrible to me, but somebody maybe disagrees. <g> with some line or dot above it is another choice. <gh> is also possible, but if you use <h> for devoicing, it maybe messy.

Do you have two different /ʋ̥/s? It's usually written with <v>.

holbuzvala
sinic
sinic
Posts: 211
Joined: 01 Jan 2017 14:03

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

Post by holbuzvala » 05 Jun 2019 20:42

@Omzinesy
Is the thing you mark with C+w labialization, velarization, or labio-velarization?

Many Native American languages use <ł> to mark the lateral fricative. In Polish it has been a velarized lateral, nowadays its [w] though.

<rh> or <hr> is maybe the most typical way to mark a sonorant being devoiced. Few languages have them, so there is no convention.

You dont use the letter <c> at all?

<q> for /ɣ/ doesnt sound horrible to me, but somebody maybe disagrees. <g> with some line or dot above it is another choice. <gh> is also possible, but if you use <h> for devoicing, it maybe messy.

Do you have two different /ʋ̥/s? It's usually written with <v>.
1. C+w is labialisation.

2. <ł> seems like a good shout for the lateral fricative. It's neater than using an 'h' in front.

3. I like ŕ for the devoiced trill, as it's in aesthetic keeping with the rest of the accented letters.

4. I could use <c> for /t͡s/ and <ć> for /t͡ʃ/, but then what would be leftover for /dz/ and d͡ʒ? Perhaps I can use <c> for /ç/ and <ć> for /ʝ/. Hmmm....

5. I'll have to veto <q> for /ɣ/. I think I'll follow the trend and go with an accent: <ǵ>. Makes clusters like <tǵ> and <kǵ> not too horrible.

6. Only one /ʋ/ and /ʋ̥/ - I'm just undecided if I should use the <v> or the <w> for the voiced one. If I use <v>, then the corresponding voiceless will be <f>; otherwise the pair will be <w hw> or <w ẃ>.

User avatar
Omzinesý
runic
runic
Posts: 2665
Joined: 27 Aug 2010 08:17
Location: nowhere [naʊhɪɚ]

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

Post by Omzinesý » 07 Jun 2019 15:30

holbuzvala wrote:
05 Jun 2019 20:42
@Omzinesy
Is the thing you mark with C+w labialization, velarization, or labio-velarization?

Many Native American languages use <ł> to mark the lateral fricative. In Polish it has been a velarized lateral, nowadays its [w] though.

<rh> or <hr> is maybe the most typical way to mark a sonorant being devoiced. Few languages have them, so there is no convention.

You dont use the letter <c> at all?

<q> for /ɣ/ doesnt sound horrible to me, but somebody maybe disagrees. <g> with some line or dot above it is another choice. <gh> is also possible, but if you use <h> for devoicing, it maybe messy.

Do you have two different /ʋ̥/s? It's usually written with <v>.
1. C+w is labialisation.

2. <ł> seems like a good shout for the lateral fricative. It's neater than using an 'h' in front.

3. I like ŕ for the devoiced trill, as it's in aesthetic keeping with the rest of the accented letters.

4. I could use <c> for /t͡s/ and <ć> for /t͡ʃ/, but then what would be leftover for /dz/ and d͡ʒ? Perhaps I can use <c> for /ç/ and <ć> for /ʝ/. Hmmm....

5. I'll have to veto <q> for /ɣ/. I think I'll follow the trend and go with an accent: <ǵ>. Makes clusters like <tǵ> and <kǵ> not too horrible.

6. Only one /ʋ/ and /ʋ̥/ - I'm just undecided if I should use the <v> or the <w> for the voiced one. If I use <v>, then the corresponding voiceless will be <f>; otherwise the pair will be <w hw> or <w ẃ>.
Usually the distinction between /ʋ/ and /v/ is quite arbitrary, like that between all voiced fricatives and the corresponding approximants. Many languages have them as allophones of the same consonant. English has quite clear /v/ because it has to contrast with /w/, but many european languages have something /ʋ/ ~ /v/.
Voiceless approximants like /ʋ̥/ apparently are possible, but personally I don't see the difference from voiceless fricatives like /f/.
The natural solution for /j/ and /ʝ/ would be <y> and <j>, respectively, but if <j> is already preserved, there is a problem. One possibility is of course to use <i> in some positions as a semivowel/approximant.

I associate the acute on a consonant quite heavily with palatalization, but that's just my valuation.
<ǵ> or <ğ> could also be used for /d͡ʒ/. Esperanto uses <ĵ> for /d͡ʒ/.
Turkish uses <c> for /d͡ʒ/ and <ç> for /t͡ʃ/, but that's just odd.

/dz/ is such a rare phoneme in many languages that it is often written <dz> though there is a letter for /ts/.

If you have consonant clusters C+ɣ, should they be seen as velarization. Depends on your phonotactics.

holbuzvala
sinic
sinic
Posts: 211
Joined: 01 Jan 2017 14:03

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

Post by holbuzvala » 08 Jun 2019 19:40

I've taken your advice, and I think I mostly have it sorted now.

/p b t d k g h s z/ <p b t d k g h s z>
/ʃ ʒ t͡s d͡z t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/ <ś ź c dz ć dź>
/Xʲ Xʷ/ <Xj Xw>
/ʋ̥ ʋ/ <f w>
/m n ŋ/ <m n ń>
/r̥ r ɬ l ɣ/ <ŕ r ł l ǵ>
/j ʝ/ <j y>

This leaves only /ç/ to deal with. <x> perhaps? or a digraph <hj> (though I tend not to like digraphs).

Post Reply