No Voiced Plosives or Fricatives

[brnath]

My new conlang has no voiced plosives /b/ /d/ /g/ or fricatives /z/ /zh/ /v/ /dh ("this")
The sound inventory is
p t tc (retroflex "t") k
f s sh th ("thin") h
ch ("teach")
l m ng ("sing") w y r

I thought it might be cool if I eliminated the voiced sounds. Any comments?

[thaen]

Definitely sounds interesting. If I may, I'll put your phoneme inventory into IPA.

Spoiler:

/p t ʈ k f s ʃ θ h tʃ͡ m̥ n̥ w j r̥ / <p t tc k f s sh th h ch l m n w y r>
The little things after the <m n r> indicate that they are voiceless, since they are ordinarily voiced.

Will you recognize voiceless vowels as voiced allophonically? Or do you mean to totally eliminate voiced sounds completely? Also, do you intend for your vowels to be voiceless as well?

PS. Welcome to the Board!

[Alomar]

Do you mean that none of your phonemes would be voiced?

I think there's no problem with having only voiceless plosives and fricatives. But having ONLY voiceless nasals is a bit odd.
Speaking of odd, having /ŋ/ without /n/ is quite bizarre. Not impossible, I'm sure. But do you have a reason, or explanation for that?

Also, what's the nature of your /r/?

All in all, I like the size of the inventory. It's quite manageable. But what do you have as far as vowels?

[zyma]

I'm pretty sure they meant that only stops and fricatives (and affricates) are all voiceless.

Giving us:

/p t ʈ k/ <p t tc k>
/f θ s ʃ h/ <f th s sh h>
/t͡ʃ/ <ch>
/m ŋ/ <m ng>
/j w/ <y w>
/r/ <r>
/l/ <l>

I'm assuming that the <r> is a coronal trill for now.

It's pretty common to have only voiceless obstruents. If all the consonants were voiceless, which I don't think they're meant to be here, that would be less plausible.

I, too, like the size and nature of the inventory.

I would have made different choices with the orthography, personally, but I really like /ʈ/ <tc> for some reason.

PS. Welcome to the Board!

[sangi39]

I'm pretty sure they meant that only stops and fricatives (and affricates) are all voiceless.

Giving us:

/p t ʈ k/ <p t tc k>
/f θ s ʃ h/ <f th s sh h>
/t͡ʃ/ <ch>
/m ŋ/ <m ng>
/j w/ <y w>
/r/ <r>
/l/ <l>

I'm assuming that the <r> is a coronal trill for now.

It's pretty common to have only voiceless obstruents. If all the consonants were voiceless, which I don't think they're meant to be here, that would be less plausible.

I, too, like the size and nature of the inventory.

I would have made different choices with the orthography, personally, but I really like /ʈ/ <tc> for some reason.

I'm with Shimobaatar on this, including the point about orthography. I would have gone with:

/p t ʈ k/ <p t d k>
/f θ s ʃ h/ <f z s x h>
/t͡ʃ/ <c>
/m ŋ/ <m g>
/j w/ <y w>
/r/ <r>
/l/ <l>

... but that' just me You're not, for example, using any of the letters which typically represent voiced plosives or fricatives, so why not use them for something else. <g> is used for /ŋ/ in a number of Polynesian languages, IIRC. <z> is used for /θ/ in some dialects of Spanish and, I think, <x> is used for /ʃ/ in several Iberian languages (thus carrying on the Iberian influence seen in <z>). Using <d> for /ʈ/ might be a bit odd, but it's not that bad really . Since you're not using <c> outside of digraphs, and now they've all been cut down, you can cut <ch> down to <c> for /t͡ʃ/.

That's just how I'd do it anyway. Basically, the size and "shape" of your inventory means that you don't have to rely on digraphs

[zyma]

I'm with Shimobaatar on this, including the point about orthography. I would have gone with:

/p t ʈ k/ <p t d k>
/f θ s ʃ h/ <f z s x h>
/t͡ʃ/ <c>
/m ŋ/ <m g>
/j w/ <y w>
/r/ <r>
/l/ <l>

That's what I would have suggested, except maybe /ŋ/ <n>. I do like the Polynesian feel of <g>, though.

And you're correct about the Iberian uses of <z x>.

[Ceresz]

<z> is used for /θ/ in some dialects of Spanish and, I think, <x> is used for /ʃ/ in several Iberian languages (thus carrying on the Iberian influence seen in <z>).

Indeed. My current project has <z> for /θ/. The consonant inventory of said project isn't all that different from this one, actually: /m n p t t͡s k θ s r β l j/, with voiced obstruents only appearing allophonically.

Anyway, everything looks fine, but I would suggest adding /n/.

[sangi39]

I'm with Shimobaatar on this, including the point about orthography. I would have gone with:

/p t ʈ k/ <p t d k>
/f θ s ʃ h/ <f z s x h>
/t͡ʃ/ <c>
/m ŋ/ <m g>
/j w/ <y w>
/r/ <r>
/l/ <l>

That's what I would have suggested, except maybe /ŋ/ <n>. I do like the Polynesian feel of <g>, though.

And you're correct about the Iberian uses of <z x>.

I was working under the assumption that /n/ was eventually going to be added, so I went with <g> instead

[brnath]

Yeah, the l m n (which i accidentally excluded but is part of it) ng and r would all be voiced. It was only the obstruents that would not.
In terms of vowels, I was thinking of going basic.
a
ɛ
i
o
u
æ
ɪ
and also two 'liquid vowels' (my terminology sucks) ḷ and ṛ i think is how its written

[zyma]

Yeah, the l m n (which i accidentally excluded but is part of it) ng and r would all be voiced. It was only the obstruents that would not.
In terms of vowels, I was thinking of going basic.
a
ɛ
i
o
u
æ
ɪ
and also two 'liquid vowels' (my terminology sucks) ḷ and ṛ i think is how its written

The "liquid vowels" are syllabic consonants.

[Nortaneous]

/p t ʈ k/ <p t d k>

I'd reverse <t d>.

I think there's natlang precedent but hell if I can remember where.

[thetha]

Pohnpeian writes /t tʂ/ as <d t>. Could that be what you were thinking of?

[sangi39]

/p t ʈ k/ <p t d k>

I'd reverse <t d>.

I think there's natlang precedent but hell if I can remember where.

Yeah, I'm sure I got the idea from somewhere, but I couldn't remember if it was from a natlang or from the Romanisation Challenge over at the ZBB

[Nortaneous]

Pohnpeian writes /t tʂ/ as <d t>. Could that be what you were thinking of?

Probably.

[Nortaneous]

Lo-Toga apparently uses <d> /t`/