The first is very much more plausible; the second would basically be a dissimilation, which could of course also happen, but it’s rarer.Nachtuil wrote:I am working on a language with a phonology inspired by eastern slavic languages. I basically have a lot of palatalized consonants and have the following vowels:
i~ɪ
u~ʊ
e~ɛ
o
a
I like that Russian has allophony in its vowels depending on the consonant context (or maybe it is the reverse, I don't remember). My question is, which of the following rules sets is more plausible/interesting/sensible/appealing:
1.
ɪ becomes i after j and palatalised consonants.
ɛ becomes e after j and palatalised consonants.
ʊ becomes u after j and palatalised consonants.
2.
i becomes ɪ after j and palatalised consonants.
e becomes ɛ after j and palatalised consonants.
u becomes ʊ after j and palatalised consonants.
Yay or Nay? [2011–2018]
Re: Yay or Nay?
At kveldi skal dag lęyfa,
Konu es bręnnd es,
Mæki es ręyndr es,
Męy es gefin es,
Ís es yfir kømr,
Ǫl es drukkit es.
Konu es bręnnd es,
Mæki es ręyndr es,
Męy es gefin es,
Ís es yfir kømr,
Ǫl es drukkit es.
Re: Yay or Nay?
Oh ok good, thanks. I was going with rule set 1. The only niggling concern is that I realize u would more likely be pulled to ʉ than rest at ʊ and be pushed back to u with a palatalized consonant.Adarain wrote: The first is very much more plausible; the second would basically be a dissimilation, which could of course also happen, but it’s rarer.
-
- sinic
- Posts: 401
- Joined: 21 Jul 2012 08:01
- Location: Buffalo, NY
Re: Yay or Nay?
That could simply be a dialectal variation, if you wanted. I don't know how you're deriving the lax allophones to begin with, but it could make for an interesting phonological shift if they were the result of, say, closed syllables, and then underwent the palatal changes, and then lost the closed syllable environment:Nachtuil wrote: Oh ok good, thanks. I was going with rule set 1. The only niggling concern is that I realize u would more likely be pulled to ʉ than rest at ʊ and be pushed back to u with a palatalized consonant.
[te tek tʲe tʲek] > [te tɛk tʲe tʲɛk] > [te tɛk tʲe tʲek] > [te tɛ tʲe tʲe]
Re: Yay or Nay?
To my knowledge Russian takes the dissimilation step, so -skiy is pronounced /skʲɪj/
Spoiler:
- DesEsseintes
- mongolian
- Posts: 4331
- Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16
Re: Yay or Nay?
No, Russian vowels become lax /ə ɪ ʊ/ in unstressed syllables, and I don't think this can be termed dissimilation. However, Russian vowel allophony is quite complex, and I would recommend the Wikipedia article on Russian phonology.qwed117 wrote:To my knowledge Russian takes the dissimilation step, so -skiy is pronounced /skʲɪj/
- Creyeditor
- MVP
- Posts: 5091
- Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32
Re: Yay or Nay?
I think if glides are considered lax or tense is pretty much language specific.Adarain wrote:The first is very much more plausible; the second would basically be a dissimilation, which could of course also happen, but it’s rarer.Nachtuil wrote:I am working on a language with a phonology inspired by eastern slavic languages. I basically have a lot of palatalized consonants and have the following vowels:
i~ɪ
u~ʊ
e~ɛ
o
a
I like that Russian has allophony in its vowels depending on the consonant context (or maybe it is the reverse, I don't remember). My question is, which of the following rules sets is more plausible/interesting/sensible/appealing:
1.
ɪ becomes i after j and palatalised consonants.
ɛ becomes e after j and palatalised consonants.
ʊ becomes u after j and palatalised consonants.
2.
i becomes ɪ after j and palatalised consonants.
e becomes ɛ after j and palatalised consonants.
u becomes ʊ after j and palatalised consonants.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
Re: Yay or Nay?
Thanks for the responses by the way.
I do recall this Russian phonology page here on Wikipedia. I forgot how massive of a role stress plays in the allophony. The system I derived is vastly simpler, no question about it.
I may just use the following where the left is after a palatal or palatalized consonant and the right otherwise and see how it works in practice.
i~ɪ
e~ɛ
a~ɑ
u
o
I do recall this Russian phonology page here on Wikipedia. I forgot how massive of a role stress plays in the allophony. The system I derived is vastly simpler, no question about it.
I may just use the following where the left is after a palatal or palatalized consonant and the right otherwise and see how it works in practice.
i~ɪ
e~ɛ
a~ɑ
u
o
Re: Yay or Nay?
(shouldn't the title be yea or nay? Ok, I'll leave.)
Re: Yay or Nay?
Some background: I have a language with front-back vowel harmony that uses diaeresis to mark the "opposite variant" vowels (for lack of a better term, I think this will be understood), i.e. /y ø æ ɤ/ as <ü ö ä ë>. The other vowels are /i e u o ɑ/ <i e u o a>. I mark historically palatalized consonants with an acute accent, i.e. /ɲ tʃ ʃ ʒ/ as <ń ć ś ŕ>. There are no other voicing distinctions in stops or fricatives apart from /ʃ ʒ/. My questions are as follows:
- Would it make more sense to transcribe /e/ as <ë> considering that the rest of the front vowels are dotted? and likewise switch /ɤ/ to <e>.
- I feel as if having acute accents and diaeresis in my language looks cluttered at times. I want to use a subscript diacritic (or maybe even a <Cy> digraph system) on consonants instead and I'm torn on which to use. Right now I am considering <ṇ c̣ ṣ ṛ> or <ņ ç ş ŗ> (or, I guess, <ny cy sy ry>). What route is more pleasing?
- I currently have /rʲ/ > /ʒ/ and I really don't like having a single voicing distinction in stops/fricatives. I skimmed the index diachronica and I found that /rʲ/ simply becoming /r/ is very common crosslinguistically even when other palatalized segments become something else. Should I go the route /rʲ/ to /r/? I guess, by extension, what are other outcomes that arise from /rʲ/ besides a voiced stop or fricatives that could be an alternative to having it merge with plain /r/?
Re: Yay or Nay?
Are those all vowels you have? /i/?somehomo wrote:Some background: I have a language with front-back vowel harmony that uses diaeresis to mark the "opposite variant" vowels (for lack of a better term, I think this will be understood), i.e. /y ø æ ɤ/ as <ü ö ä ë>. The other vowels are /i e u o ɑ/ <i e u o a>. I mark historically palatalized consonants with an acute accent, i.e. /ɲ tʃ ʃ ʒ/ as <ń ć ś ŕ>. There are no other voicing distinctions in stops or fricatives apart from /ʃ ʒ/. My questions are as follows:
- Would it make more sense to transcribe /e/ as <ë> considering that the rest of the front vowels are dotted? and likewise switch /ɤ/ to <e>.
I would say no, though I'm struggling with /ɤ/ in Vålkakil.
A dot below is used for retroflexes or "emphatic". <ņ ç ş ŗ> are nice if you have time to type them. At least with affricates and sibilants it looks nice. I prefer <Cj> instead of <Cy> because <j> is just smaller.I feel as if having acute accents and diaeresis in my language looks cluttered at times. I want to use a subscript diacritic (or maybe even a <Cy> digraph system) on consonants instead and I'm torn on which to use. Right now I am considering <ṇ c̣ ṣ ṛ> or <ņ ç ş ŗ> (or, I guess, <ny cy sy ry>). What route is more pleasing?
I personally find having one voicing distinction unique and interesting, but if you don't like it, that's apparently the easiest way.[*]I currently have /rʲ/ > /ʒ/ and I really don't like having a single voicing distinction in stops/fricatives. I skimmed the index diachronica and I found that /rʲ/ simply becoming /r/ is very common crosslinguistically even when other palatalized segments become something else. Should I go the route /rʲ/ to /r/?[/list]
My meta-thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5760
- Creyeditor
- MVP
- Posts: 5091
- Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32
Re: Yay or Nay?
1. No, because <i> /i/, but see 2.
2. A third option would be to just make an orthographic convention, that diaresis and acute accents cannot co-occur.
3. You could also have /rʲ/ > /ʒ/ > /ʃ/
2. A third option would be to just make an orthographic convention, that diaresis and acute accents cannot co-occur.
3. You could also have /rʲ/ > /ʒ/ > /ʃ/
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
Re: Yay or Nay?
1. Naysomehomo wrote:Some background: I have a language with front-back vowel harmony that uses diaeresis to mark the "opposite variant" vowels, i.e. /y ø æ ɤ/ as <ü ö ä ë>. I mark historically palatalized consonants with an acute accent, i.e. /ɲ tʃ ʃ ʒ/ as <ń ć ś ŕ>. There are no other voicing distinctions in stops or fricatives apart from /ʃ ʒ/. My questions are as follows:
- Would it make more sense to transcribe /e/ as <ë> considering that the rest of the front vowels are dotted? and likewise switch /ɤ/ to <e>.
- I feel as if having acute accents and diaeresis in my language looks cluttered at times. I want to use a subscript diacritic (or maybe even a <Cy> digraph system) on consonants instead and I'm torn on which to use. Right now I am considering <ṇ c̣ ṣ ṛ> or <ņ ç ş ŗ> (or, I guess, <ny cy sy ry>. What route is more pleasing?
- I currently have /rʲ/ > /ʒ/ and I really don't like having a single voicing distinction in stops/fricatives. I skimmed the index diachronica and I found that /rʲ/ simply becoming /r/ is very common crosslinguistically even when other palatalized segments become something else. Should I go the route /rʲ/ to /r/?
2. <ny cy sy ry> if you want easy to type and <ṇ c̣ ṣ ṛ> if you want pretty (IMO)
3. A very large YAY
Edit: Creyeditor's suggestion to 3 is very good.
Re: Yay or Nay?
Thank you all very much!
I'm not too sure on the consonants.
Well, there is <ı> used in Turkic languages, so I would consider <i> as being dotted even though only one dot exists as opposed to the two diaeresis. Regardless, I think I'll keep it as is. <e ë> are the most common two vowels and its really more of a hassle to switch the two than I'd like.Creyeditor wrote:1. No, because <i> /i/, but see 2
I'm not too sure on the consonants.
Concerning consonants, here's an example sentence written with each convention. This might tie into a non-yay-or-nay question. I immediately don't like the last two because consonant clusters agree orthographically in palatal-ness (i.e. kör + śül > köŕśül) and that the palatalization was contrastive before /i. First off, I want to ask if these assimilation rules are naturalistic or should be modified:Aś köŕśül üneyhene eytäyöce höya ćinithećötän.
Aṣ köṣṛül üneyhene eytayöce höyä c̣inithec̣ötän.
Aş köŗşül üneyhene eytayöce höya çinitheçötän.
Asy körsyül üneyhene eytayöce höyä cyinithecyötän.
Asj körsjül üneyhene eytäyöce höya cjinithecjötän.
The second assimilatory rule is why I suggested <Cy> as /j/ is transcribed <y>. I'll wait for more feedback before I make a definite decision.- Plain alveolar consonants will become palatal consonants (i.e. /n t͡s s r/ > [ɲ t͡ʃ ʃ ʒ]) next to another palatal consonant regardless of order.
- /nj t͡sj sj rj/ become [ɲ t͡ʃ ʃ ʒ]. /j/ is elided after existing /ɲ t͡ʃ ʃ ʒ/.
- /ʃʒ ʒʃ/ are realized as [ʒ: ʃ:] respectively.
Re: Yay or Nay?
I like the third option best, because it looks a bit like Turkish.somehomo wrote:Aś köŕśül üneyhene eytäyöce höya ćinithećötän.
Aṣ köṣṛül üneyhene eytayöce höyä c̣inithec̣ötän.
Aş köŗşül üneyhene eytayöce höya çinitheçötän.
Asy körsyül üneyhene eytayöce höyä cyinithecyötän.
Asj körsjül üneyhene eytäyöce höya cjinithecjötän.
Yet another sound change option for *rj would be to lenite it to /j/.
Blog: audmanh.wordpress.com
Conlangs: Ronc Tyu | Buruya Nzaysa | Doayâu | Tmaśareʔ
Conlangs: Ronc Tyu | Buruya Nzaysa | Doayâu | Tmaśareʔ
- DesEsseintes
- mongolian
- Posts: 4331
- Joined: 31 Mar 2013 13:16
Re: Yay or Nay?
cedh wrote:Yet another sound change option for *rj would be to lenite it to /j/.
Re: Yay or Nay?
Back in ye olden days, I had a plan for Mesak to have a substrate language/civilization, and said language would have clicks. However, I’ve since repurposed Semụr as said substrate.
Do I add clicks to its phonology?
This is the phone inventory, where parentheses are allophonic only:
Syllable structure is C₁V(C₂) where C₁ is all consonants and C₂ is quite restricted. I would probably add around 15 click phonemes to the C₁ position. The lexicon is fairly empty, so it wouldn’t feel very tacked on imo. I’d also probably restrict clicks to root-initial position, khoi-san style (i.e. not allow them in affixes and particles). I reckon the inventory would be along the lines of:
PoA: Alveolar !, Palatal ǂ, Lateral ‖
MoA: Tenuis !, Nasal !̃, Voiced !̬, Aspirate !ʰ and maybe one more, perhaps preglottalized or voiceless nasal.
Do I add clicks to its phonology?
This is the phone inventory, where parentheses are allophonic only:
Spoiler:
PoA: Alveolar !, Palatal ǂ, Lateral ‖
MoA: Tenuis !, Nasal !̃, Voiced !̬, Aspirate !ʰ and maybe one more, perhaps preglottalized or voiceless nasal.
At kveldi skal dag lęyfa,
Konu es bręnnd es,
Mæki es ręyndr es,
Męy es gefin es,
Ís es yfir kømr,
Ǫl es drukkit es.
Konu es bręnnd es,
Mæki es ręyndr es,
Męy es gefin es,
Ís es yfir kømr,
Ǫl es drukkit es.
- Creyeditor
- MVP
- Posts: 5091
- Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32
Re: Yay or Nay?
Wow, this is a really beautiful phone inventory. It is beautiful on its own, but clicks would also really fit it, because you already have a contrast in aspiration/voicing and also affricates. So I would say, yes add clicks. Be sure to connect the MOAs to the other consonants though, so voiceless nasal (or other something similar) is a must
Also yay for having clicks in C1 position only. Very naturalistic.
I also have a tiny question, that has no connection to your question: How front is your a? Is it really front or maybe more central?
Also yay for having clicks in C1 position only. Very naturalistic.
I also have a tiny question, that has no connection to your question: How front is your a? Is it really front or maybe more central?
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 2 3 4 4
Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics
Re: Yay or Nay?
Thanks for the compliments, and I guess clicks it is.Creyeditor wrote:Wow, this is a really beautiful phone inventory. It is beautiful on its own, but clicks would also really fit it, because you already have a contrast in aspiration/voicing and also affricates. So I would say, yes add clicks. Be sure to connect the MOAs to the other consonants though, so voiceless nasal (or other something similar) is a must
Also yay for having clicks in C1 position only. Very naturalistic.
I also have a tiny question, that has no connection to your question: How front is your a? Is it really front or maybe more central?
I wouldn’t have put it there if it wasn’t front. I usually use /a/ as a central vowel tho (I’d never use the symbol /ä/, instead if I had to contrast front and central I’d use /æ a/).
At kveldi skal dag lęyfa,
Konu es bręnnd es,
Mæki es ręyndr es,
Męy es gefin es,
Ís es yfir kømr,
Ǫl es drukkit es.
Konu es bręnnd es,
Mæki es ręyndr es,
Męy es gefin es,
Ís es yfir kømr,
Ǫl es drukkit es.
-
- sinic
- Posts: 413
- Joined: 27 Jan 2013 02:12
- Contact:
Re: Yay or Nay?
Shonkasika nouns decline differently according to animacy . For the nominative and accusative cases, animate nouns take the suffixes -s and -d while inanimate nouns take -k and -(nothing) respectively. The first and second person pronouns (animate) are different, taking nothing in the animate case.
I'm thinking of changing that so that the 1p and 2p pronouns take -dz in the nominative and -(nothing) in the accusative. Shonkasika is a pro-drop language due to the clear verb endings; thus, accusative forms will appear more often. So yay or nay for new (distinct) case forms for the 1p and 2p pronouns?
I'm thinking of changing that so that the 1p and 2p pronouns take -dz in the nominative and -(nothing) in the accusative. Shonkasika is a pro-drop language due to the clear verb endings; thus, accusative forms will appear more often. So yay or nay for new (distinct) case forms for the 1p and 2p pronouns?
Visit my website for my blogs and information on my conlangs: http://grwilliams.net/ It's a work in progress!
Re: Yay or Nay?
I say yay. I don't know if it's more common in natlangs but I think it makes a lot more sense logisticallyfelipesnark wrote:I'm thinking of changing that so that the 1p and 2p pronouns take -dz in the nominative and -(nothing) in the accusative. Shonkasika is a pro-drop language due to the clear verb endings; thus, accusative forms will appear more often. So yay or nay for new (distinct) case forms for the 1p and 2p pronouns?