NZ English Descendent

[kanejam]

I've created a few sound changes, mostly based on sound changes that are in progress, and applied them to my dialect. I'm posting it here because I don't want to clutter up the Conlang forum with it. It's not really a show of great conlangership and has yet to be developed beyond a few sound changes.

So firstly, my dialect is New Zealand English. Notable features are: non-rhotic, yod-retaining, mid-vowels are higher (so /æ ɛ/ are closer to [ɛ e]), the starting point of most diphthongs are lower, /ɪ/ is closer to [ɘ] and starting to merge with /ə/, and /ʌ/ is [ɐ] and contrasts with /ɐ:/ by length alone. Consonants are pretty standard.

So sound changes: stressed vowels before voiced consonants lengthen (I haven't decided whether this will destroy the old length contrast yet) and initial and final voiced consonants devoice, to contrast only in aspiration with the unvoiced consonants initially and in vowel length finally: cab, cap, gap → /kʰɛːp̚, kʰɛp̚, kɛp̚/. Intervocalic /t d/ → /ɾ/, intervocalic /b/ → /p/ and /g/ → /ɣ/ → /ŋ/. There is then a slight shuffling of the vowels, but nothing too far from modern-day NZ English, a reduction in consonant clusters (intervocalic /t/ comes back in a few instances, like arctic [ɐːtək̚]) and some l-vocalisation.

I'm not sure what a believable timeframe for this is, probably not too much more than 100 years though. It would still remain largely intelligible to speakers of other dialects of English, especially Australians, South Africans and some South England speakers.

Vowels

Spoiler:

TRAP → ɛ
BATH, PALM, START → aː
LOT, CLOTH → ɔ
THOUGHT, NORTH, FORCE → oː
KIT → ə (→ ɪi before voiced velars)
FLEECE, HAPPY → ɪi (→ eə before /l/)
DRESS → e (→ ɛ before /l/)
STRUT → ɐ
FOOT → ʊu
GOOSE → ɪ̈ɨ (older ʊ̈ʉ; → ʊu before /l/}
FACE → ɛɪ
PRICE → aɪ
CHOICE → oɪ
GOAT → ɐɪ̈ (older ɐʊ̈)
MOUTH → ɛo
NURSE → əː, (older ɵː)
NEAR, SQUARE → eə
(CURE → ɨə, but usually either merges with o, əː or eə)
COMMA, LETTER → ə

So an example text: [ˈnjɪ̈ɨ ˈzeəɰn̩t̚ oː aoteaɾoa ˌəːz ən ˈaɪɰn̩t̚ ˈkʰɐntɻɪi ˌəːn ð̞ə sɛoθˈwestən pʰəˈsəfək̚ ˈɐɨʃn̩]

And just because it fits the vowels so well, I've tried using a variation of the Vietnamese alphabet to transcribe it, although realistically there probably wouldn't be any spelling reform.

Nyư Zealânt (ô Aotearoa, [phrâneonst Aôtêarrôa]) âz 'n ailânt khăntri ân dâ seođwestơn phâsâfâk ăưxân.

Maybe round 2's sound changes will be a merger of tr and ch, a fixing up of the vowels and semivowels and a neutralisation of voicing in the fricatives, maybe voicing intervocalically and devoicing word finally.

Spoiler:

A consonant inventory for those of you who came this far:

/m n ŋ/ (ŋ still doesn't appear word initially)
/p t tʃ k/
/pʰ tʰ tʃʰ kʰ/ (only contrastive word initially)
/f θ s ʃ h/ (h doesn't appear in clusters or word-finally)
/v z ʒ/ (ʒ doesn't appear word-initially)
/w ð̞ ɾ ɻ ɫ~ɰ j/ (ɾ doesn't appear word-initially and usually only intervocalically)

And the Vietisation:

<m n ng/g>
<p t c k>
<ph th ch kh>
<f đ s x h>
<v z zx>
<w d rr r l y>

Edit: Tweaked some stuff

[Ithisa]

Don't all dialects of English already merge tr into "chr"?

[Znex]

Don't all dialects of English already merge tr into "chr"?

Indeed, however he is suggesting the merger of ch and tr.
eg. A result arising from this would be the loss of distinction between train and chain.

[Salmoneus]

Don't all dialects of English already merge tr into "chr"?

If you mean phonemically: no, because 'chr' has never been a legal cluster anyway.
If you mean phonetically: still no. For instance, for me 'ch' is a laminal affricate, whereas 'tr' begins with an apical stop.

[kanejam]

Don't all dialects of English already merge tr into "chr"?

Indeed, however he is suggesting the merger of ch and tr.
eg. A result arising from this would be the loss of distinction between train and chain.

Yes most dialects release /tr/ with a little bit of frication [t̠ʂɻ] but I hold they're still separate phonemes and as the t̠ʂ is distinct from /tʃ/, in careful speech you will still here [tɻ] and in people's minds they are separate. That is basically the test of phonemicity, and also why I hate proposed English orthography reforms that write /tr/ as <chr>.

But yeah I could conceivably see the two /tr/ and /tʃ/ merging in the future.

[kanejam]

After another short round of sound changes I get here:
/ˈnjiː ˈzeəjn̩ʔ z‿ən ˈaɪjn̩ʔ ˈkʰɐntʂi ˌəːn ð̞ə ˌsɛɔθˈwestən pʰəˈsəfk̚ ˈɐiʃn̩. ð̞ə ˈkʰɐntʂi ˌtʂi.ɐiˈkɻɛfk̚ji kəmˈpʰɻaizəz ˈtʰiː ˈɫɛnmɛsəz - ð̞ɛɾ v‿ð̞ə ˈnoθəjn̩ʔ ən ˈsɛɔθəjn̩ʔ - ən ˈniːmɻəs smoːjə ˈaɪjn̩z./

With as phonetic an orthography as possible, mixing the Vietnamese orthography with some inspiration from Slavic languages:
Nji Zeajën'z ën aijën' khanči ën dë seoθwêstën phësëfk oišn. Dë khanči čioikrefëkji këmphraizëz thi lenmesëz - der ëv dë nôθëjën' ën' seoθëjën' - ën' nimrës smôjë aiyën'z.

More realistically, the pronunciation is still largely deductible from spelling, although not the other way round, and the language will slowly be pushed more and more into a state of diglossia. There likely won't have been a major reform yet and only a few small changes in spelling of some words due to common misspellings that become standard.

The glottal stop from final /t/ (and in some cases final /d/, maybe all cases?) will most likely just drop out. Although some interesting developments could occur if the glottal stops glottalise any surrounding resonants. Other sound changes in progress at this stage is the long-awaited death of the original length distinction. I might try to kill the voicing distinction in fricatives as well.

Numbers: /ˈwɐːn ˈtʰiː ˈθɻiː ˈfoː ˈfaːi̯v ˈsəks ˈseːvn̩ ˈɛi̯ʔ ˈnaːi̯n ˈtʰeːn əˈɫeːvn̩ ˈtʰwɛːjv θəˈɾiːn foˈɾiːn fəfˈtiːn səksˈtiːn sevˈniːn ɛi̯ˈɾiːn nai̯nˈtʰiːn ˈtʰweːni / the '-teen' numbers are stressed on their second syllables to distinguish them from the '-ty' numbers. They might also be pronounced /ˈθəɾin ˈfoɾin ˈfəftin ˈsəkstin ˈseːvnin ˈɛːi̯ɾin ˈnaːi̯nin/, in which case they differ from the '-ty' numbers only by the final /n/.

Edit: I'm also hesitant about merging the GOAT and PRICE vowels, although I suppose sacrifices must be made. I might try again but keeping the rounding distinction on the GOOSE and NURSE vowels.

[Ithisa]

Don't all dialects of English already merge tr into "chr"?

If you mean phonemically: no, because 'chr' has never been a legal cluster anyway.
If you mean phonetically: still no. For instance, for me 'ch' is a laminal affricate, whereas 'tr' begins with an apical stop.

Isn't this just a circular argument? All fricatives can form clusters with R, why not the affricates?

[Salmoneus]

It could, but it doesn't. There are no words with [tSr] within the same morpheme.
Now, you could say that all [tr] is really [tSr], but this still wouldn't amount to a merger. You have to have two distinct things in order for them to merge - two things that have never been distinguished from one another cannot merge.

But in any case, no, they're not merged. Do you really pronounce "mat-rate" and "match-rate" the same? I certainly don't.

[basilius]

I have some questions on the ancestral NZE dialect...

<...> yod-retaining <...>

Does this mean, retaining [ju] after alveolars?

<...> stressed vowels before voiced consonants lengthen (I haven't decided whether this will destroy the old length contrast yet) <...>

<...> Intervocalic /t d/ → /ɾ/, <...>

Is the change to flap already complete in your lect, for both /t/ and /d/?

If it is, does vowel length distinguish the words with historical /t/ and /d/ when the vowel is historically long (e. g. coding vs. coating)? When the vowel is historically short (utter vs. udder)?

Now, you could say that all [tr] is really [tSr], but this still wouldn't amount to a merger. You have to have two distinct things in order for them to merge - two things that have never been distinguished from one another cannot merge.

But in any case, no, they're not merged. Do you really pronounce "mat-rate" and "match-rate" the same? I certainly don't.

I think it's a bit more complex.

As I understand, bee trap (whatever that might mean) will be different (for many speakers? for some speakers?) from both beach rap and beat rap (same comment on semantics), so {tr} is different from both /t/+/r/ and /tʃ/+/r/ found on (certain types of) morpheme boundaries.

Your test would work for a lot of languages, but it doesn't seem to work for English :)

(I don't have a ready opinion of my own on how to treat {tr} phonologically; it seems to be a neutralization position, but defining the position in purely phonetic terms may prove impossible... on the other hand, my stance is that the phone found in neutralization position does not need to be identified with one of the merging phonemes at all costs - the very idea of neutralization is about phones that can be a realization of either.)

Edit: BTW, comparing {tr} with {dr} *and* {str} may be relevant.

Edit: Also, it would be interesting to see how /t/ + /r/ are realized in different accents when the /t/ belongs to a proclitic: at really high altitudes, at wrong points, and the like.

[kanejam]

I have some questions on the ancestral NZE dialect...

<...> yod-retaining <...>

Does this mean, retaining [ju] after alveolars?

<...> stressed vowels before voiced consonants lengthen (I haven't decided whether this will destroy the old length contrast yet) <...>

<...> Intervocalic /t d/ → /ɾ/, <...>

Is the change to flap already complete in your lect, for both /t/ and /d/?

If it is, does vowel length distinguish the words with historical /t/ and /d/ when the vowel is historically long (e. g. coding vs. coating)? When the vowel is historically short (utter vs. udder)?

It's hard doing a proper phonological analysis on my own lect because the way I think I speak and the way I speak in careful speech is so much different to how I actually speak. But anyway, by yod-retaining I did mean that, basically just not-yod-dropping. Although I should mention that /tj dj/ are very rarely pronounced like that, and usually merge into [tʃ dʒ].

I'm not so sure about the next part though. /d/ → /ɾ/ is definitely completely, but I think that most intevocalic t's can be either flapped or stopped. I'm not sure on the specifics but I think only in the fastest speech would they both be flapped. I don't think vowel length is distinguished in those contexts though, making coding-coating and utter-udder homophone pairs (although they can still be distinguished in careful speech). So realistically a descendent would just merge them, unless I postponed the /t/ → /ɾ/ change until after the new vowel length distinction finished, meaning that coding-coating would stay separate (but utter-udder would merge)

Having said that, I can probably just redo the distinction of coding-coating through analogy, as they are both transparently related to code-coat which would get the length distinction. I need to look more at the morphology of this descendant. I'm trying to think of ways to incorporate more Polynesian and Chinese aspects into it, but diachronics is hard enough without using one's native tongue! Basically a lot of my inspiration is just coming from youth slang, and I'm not too sure what else to do, other than try to push for more isolating, and maybe grammaticalise 'like' in some way.

Now, you could say that all [tr] is really [tSr], but this still wouldn't amount to a merger. You have to have two distinct things in order for them to merge - two things that have never been distinguished from one another cannot merge.

But in any case, no, they're not merged. Do you really pronounce "mat-rate" and "match-rate" the same? I certainly don't.

I think it's a bit more complex.

As I understand, bee trap (whatever that might mean) will be different (for many speakers? for some speakers?) from both beach rap and beat rap (same comment on semantics), so {tr} is different from both /t/+/r/ and /tʃ/+/r/ found on (certain types of) morpheme boundaries.

Your test would work for a lot of languages, but it doesn't seem to work for English :)

(I don't have a ready opinion of my own on how to treat {tr} phonologically; it seems to be a neutralization position, but defining the position in purely phonetic terms may prove impossible... on the other hand, my stance is that the phone found in neutralization position does not need to be identified with one of the merging phonemes at all costs - the very idea of neutralization is about phones that can be a realization of either.)

Edit: BTW, comparing {tr} with {dr} *and* {str} may be relevant.

Edit: Also, it would be interesting to see how /t/ + /r/ are realized in different accents when the /t/ belongs to a proclitic: at really high altitudes, at wrong points, and the like.

Hmmm for me, word-final t's are unreleased or even become glottal stops, so they can't react with a following r. Having said that, as soon as something like that compounds, the t does react with the r to form a sort of retroflex affricate e.g. beetroot.

Just off-topic, I'm impressed by the number of vowel morphemes this descendent has; at one point it might have had as many as 22 monophthongs: i iː ɨ ɨː u uː e eː o oː ɛ ɛː ə əː (ɵ ɵː) ɔ ɔː ɐ ɐː (a aː). Next I'll look at simplifying some diphthongs caused by the l-vocalisation.

[kanejam]

Here is a word list taking from the international word list of Basic English.

Spoiler:

alcohol • Algebra • aluminium • ammonia • anaesthetic • April • Arithmetic • asbestos • August • automobile
ˈɛjkəɦɔʊ (ˈpiːz, ˈpʰəs, ˈtʃiŋ), ˈɛjtʃəprɐ, ɛjˈməːnjəm, əˈməːjnjə, ɛnəˈseɾək, ɛjpɻəw, əˈɻəθmətək, ɛsˈpestɔs, ˈoːkəs, kʰɐː (oɾəj)
ballet • bank • bar • beef • beer • Biology • bomb
pɛˈjɛj, ˈpɛŋk, ˈpɐː, ˈpif, ˈpeə, pɐˈjɔːjətʃi, ˈpɔːm
cafe • calendar • centi- • champagne • chauffeur • chemist • Chemistry • cheque • chocolate • cigarette • circus • citron • club • coffee • cocktail • cognac • College • colony
ˈkʰɛfɛj, ˈkʰɛːjəntə, ˈsenti-, ˈpɐːpɫi (ʃɛmˈpʰɛjn), ˈtʃɐːjvə (ˈʃəjfə), ˈkʰeːməs (ˈfɐːməsəs for a drugstore worker), ˈkʰeːməstʃi, ˈtʃʰek, ˈtʃʰɔkləʔ, ˈsiːkrɛʔ, ˈsəkəs, (I've never heard of a citron, so I imagine the word would die out, but the reflex would be ˈsətʃən), ˈkʰɫɐːp, ˈkʰɔfi, ˈkʰɔtɛjəw, ˈkʰɔːnjɛk, ˈkʰɔːjtʃ (although this means high school), ˈkʰɔːjni
dance • December • degree • dynamite
ˈtɐns, təˈseːmpə, təˈkɻiː, ˈtɐːjnəmɐjʔ
eight • electricity • eleven • Embassy • Empire • encyclopedia • engineer
ˈɛjʔ, ɛjkˈtʃəsti, əˈjeːvən, ˈeːmpsi, ˈempɐjə, ənsɐjkɫəjˈpʰiːtjə, entʃəˈneːə
February • fifteen • fifth • fifty • five • four • fourteen • fourth • forty • Friday
ˈfeːpɻi, fəfˈtʰiːn, ˈfəθ, ˈfəfti, ˈfɐːjv, ˈfoː, foˈtʰiːn (foˈɾiːn as a major allophone), ˈfoθ, ˈfoɾi, ˈfɻɐjɾɛj
gas • Geography • Geology • Geometry • gram • glycerin
ˈkɛs (for the state, not for gasoline which is ˈpʰetʃəw), tʃiˈɔːkɻəfi, tʃiˈɔːjtʃi, tʃiˈɔːmətʃi, ˈkɻɛːm, ˈkləsɻən
half • hotel • hundred • hyena • hygiene • hysteria
ɦɐf (homophone with huff), ɦəjˈtɛːw, ˈɦɐːntʃəʔ, ɦɐjˈiːnə, ɦəˈseːɻjə
Imperial • influenza • international
əmˈpʰeːɻjəw, ənfɫiˈeːnzə (ˈfliː is much more common though), əntəˈnɛʃnəw

Unfinished:
January • jazz • July • June
kilo- • King
latitude • lava • litre/liter • liqueur • longitude
macaroni • madam • magnetic • malaria • March • Mathematics • May • metre/meter• micro- • microscope • milli- • million • minute • Monday • Museum
neutron • nickel • nicotine • nine • November
October • olive • once • omelet • one • opera • opium • orchestra • organism
pyjamas/pajamas • paraffin • paradise • park • passport • patent • penguin • petroleum • phonograph • Physics • Physiology • piano • platinum • police • post • President • Prince • Princess • program • propaganda • Psychology • pyramid
quarter • Queen • quiz
radio • radium • referendum • restaurant • rheumatism • Royal • rum
salad • sardine • Saturday • second • September • seven • sir • six • sixteen • sport • Sunday• Sex
taxi • tea • telegram • telephone • ten • terrace • theatre • thermometer • third • thirteen • thirty • thousand • three • Thursday • toast • tobacco • torpedo • Tuesday • turbine • twenty-one • twelve • twenty • twice • two
university • universal
vanilla • violin • visa • vitamin • vodka • volt
Wednesday • whisky
you
zebra • zinc • Zoology

Realistically the diphthongs probably wouldn't turn into vowel+offglide but it makes it easier to distinguish between the short and long diphthongs. I'm not quite done but I'll keep working on it. Also, the length distinction in vowels is only in stressed syllables, so any and all non-stressed vowels are short. There is quite a bit of syllable deletion and consonant cluster reduction, especially word-finally. So ant /ˈɛn/ and the stressed form of and /ˈɛːn/ differ only by vowel length. Some speakers might have the archaic pronunciation of /ˈɛnʔ ˈɛːnʔ/, but for most speakers stressed and and Anne are homophones. Some more homophone pairs: food-feed, card-cud, cart-cut, spurt-spit, pool-pull (the pool-pull merger might not happen if /l/ is neutral wrt lengthening, I'm already thinking that /ɾ/ will be neutral but so far it's the only one).

/h/ is really on its last legs, it only ever appears between vowels (or utterance-initially). I quite like it as a phoneme though so I don't want to get rid of it completely. The same is true of /θ/, which has endured for the whole history of English, although there are quite a few speakers who don't use it.

[kanejam]

I am still slowly working on this. My two major troubles are getting an orthography that works and lining up the timeframe. I feel like the change ʉ→ɨ→i should take quite a while. The first part I think is already underway, or at least just around the corner, but the second part merges an awful lot of words. And then I don't really have a lot of other changes that are keeping pace with this. Also I'm not sure that there has been enough lexical replacement.

Anyway, last iteration of changes are loss of /h/ in all dialects, although in the prestige dialect it still blocks liaison (which I'll explain in a sec), the merger of /oj ɔj/ (from /ɐj/; /əj/ I think will remain unchanged for the moment) to one or the other depending on speaker, and the changes ow→uː ej→iː eə→eː. Many dialects have now lost the interdental fricatives, going to labiodentals except for word-initial /ð/, which goes to d̪ and then merges with unaspirated /t/. Only the higher socioeconomic speakers retain it. /ɛɔ/ also changes to either /ɛw/ or /ew/ depending on the speaker.

The liaison comes from modern day NZ English, which exhibits both the linking and intrusive r. Basically, word-final r is pronounced when the following word starts with a vowel, and r often pops up where it shouldn't e.g. law and order /ɫoːɻ‿ən‿oːɾə/. Many words instead have a /j/ or /w/ pop up. Most speakers agree on which epenthetic consonant pops up, except for the reflex of /au/. Most speakers throw in a /w/ but many people, especially from the South insert an /ɻ/. Yes, people do say 'nowr or never' or 'howr are ya?'.

There is a shift to syllable-timed speech, with the deletion of most atonic schwas and the influence of Māori. /ŋ/ changes to /n/ in all -ing suffixes, but remains elsewhere e.g. sing /siːŋ/, sink /siŋ/. Word-initial schwas are often deleted, but still trigger liaison. Many common function words have two distinct forms: a stressed and unstressed form. If I manage to wrangle up an orthography that works then I'll only ever write the stressed form as many of them coalesce into schwas.

Lastly, I had an idea that if I did this again, I might have overlong versions of a and the schwa i.e. /ɐːː əːː/ reflecting the long versions of present day /ɐː ɵː/.

Here's the Lord's Prayer:
/ˈɛːwə(ɻ) ˈfɐːðə(ɻ) əːn ˈ(ɦ)eːvən/ [ɐːˈfɐːvɻəˈneːvn̩]
/ˈ(ɦ)ɛːjəjʔ piː(j) joː(ɻ) nɛːjm/ [ˈɛːjəjˈpiːjəˈnɛːjm]
/joː(ɻ) ˈkʰiːŋtəm kʰɐːm/ [jəˈkʰiːntəmˈkʰɐːm]
/joː(ɻ) wəːw piː(j) tɐːn ɔːn əθ ɛːz əːn ˈ(ɦ)eːvən/ [jəˈwɔːwpiːˈtɐːnənˈəfɛzənˈeːvn̩̩̩̩]
/kəːv ɐs təˈɾɛːj ˈɛːwə(ɻ) ˈtɛːji(j) pɻeːʔ/ [ˈkəːvəsˈtɾɛːjɐːˈtɛːjiˈpɻeː/
/foˈkəːv ɐs ˈɛːwə(ɻ) səːnz/ [foˈkəːvəsɐːˈsəːnz]
/ɛːz wiː(j) foˈkəːv ðəːjz (ɦ)iː(w) səːn (ə)kɛjns ɐs/ [ɛzˈwiːfokəːvˈtəːjziːˈsəːnkɛjnsəs]
/ɫiːʔ ɐs nɔʔ (ə)nˈtʰiː(w) tʰenˈtɛjʃən/ [ˈɫiːɾəsˈnɔɾntətʰenˈtɛjʃn̩]
/pɐʔ təˈɫəːvə(ɻ) ɐs frɔːm iːvəw/ [pɐˈtɫəːvɻəsfrəˈmiːvɔw]
/foː(ɻ) ðə(j) ˈkʰiːŋtəm, ðə(j) pʰɛːwə(ɻ), ɛːn ðə(j) ˈkɫoːɻi(j) ɐː(ɻ) joːz/ [fətəˈkʰiːntəmtəˈpʰɛːwɻəntəˈkɫoːɻijɐːjoːz]
/nɛːw((ɻ)) ɛːn foˈɻeːvə(ɻ)/ [ˈnɛːɻənfoˈɻeːvə]
/ˌɐːˈmeːn/ [ˌɐːˈmeːn]

Spoiler:

And an attempt at a realistic orthography:
Auer Fadher in hevin
hayoud bie yor naim
Yor kiengdim kam
yor wil bie dan on erth as in hevin
Giv us tidáy auer daiyie bred
Forgív us auer sinz
az wie forgív dhouz hiu sin igáins us
Lied us not intíu temtáishin
but dilívir us from ievil
For dhe kiengdim, dhe pauer and glorie ar yorz
Nau an forévir
Amen
Basically an acute on words that aren't stressed on the first syllable and otherwise just a slight reshuffling of vowels and consonants so that long and short vowels should be predictable from spelling. It doesn't regularly distinguish between /ɔ/ and /o/, and /ɛ/ and /ɐ/, and native speakers probably wouldn't write accents.

I'll try to do more on morphology as well. Basically I'll just start grammaticalising some of the poor English that natives and foreigners alike produce, e.g. the word 'many' will drop out completely.

[Ambrisio]

Auer Fadher in hevin
...
Lied us not intíu temtáishin
but dilívir us from ievil

Is that really supposed to be a descendant? It looks more like eye-dialect!

Compare Frisian:

Us Heit, dy't yn de himelen is
...
En lied ús net yn fersiking,
mar ferlos ús fan 'e kweade.

I think your language could use a little more synthesis. The prepositions ("into", "in" and "from"), for example, could turn into case prefixes. And why would the archaic negative construction in 'lead us not' be preserved?

[kanejam]

Ambrisio! Welcome back, I missed you!

Yes it is far far too conservative grammatically. I've sort of put this project on hold for a little while though. But yes I should change the 'Lead us not' to 'Don't lead us', and set that at about 2200, before the merger of /u/ and /i/. Then when I get a chance I will look at actually making some grammatical change.

[Ambrisio]

Speaking of conlangs based on English, I should probably get back to work on my Godalise Creole language, which is just English relexified with vocabulary from another conlang of mine.

[threecat]

Good work,Kanejam. Why not have a /y/ and a /Y/ in the phonology?

[kanejam]

Because original /u/ goes to /i\/ rather than /y/.

[threecat]

Understood. Why not have a /ø/ if /ɘ/ is already pronounced /ø/ in some NZ dialects?

[kanejam]

/ɪ/ is [ɘ] and is beer rounded. It's /ɜː/, the Nurse vowel, that's is rounded to [ɵ]. It goes to schwa in unstressed syllables but maybe I could keep it and front it in stressed syllables. Another option I was thinking about was to thinking about is having it diphthongise somehow.