Re: my phonology

Henrik Theiling wrote:

># 1 <salut_vous_autre@...> writes:
> > I would like to show the phonology of my conlang to get commentaries
>
>What's the design goal for this?  To know it would help for making
>comments.
what do you mean? it is to be used for a consize conlang. Is that your
question?


>I'll simply make some general, arbitrary comments for now.
>
> >             bilab labioden alveo postalveo pala velar uvular glot
> >
> > aspirated     2      2       2       0      0     2     0      0
> > plosives
> >
> > unaspirated   2      2       2       2      0     2     2      1
> > plosives
>
>Postalveolar plosives seem to be innovative.  They are distinguishable
>from alveolar for me, but not easily.  I'd go for retroflex to make
>them more distinguishable, since there is nothing close to retroflex
>in your inventory.
Yes it would be simpler I'll think about it

> > fricatives    2      2       2       2      0     2     2      1
>
>Few languages distinguish velar and uvular fricatives, although some
>exist: e.g., natlang: Inuktitut/Kalaallisut, conlang: Qthen|gai (:-)).
>There was a thread started by John, our former Lord of Instrumentality
>(BTW: who is it now?), discussing velar vs. uvular fricatives.
Only a few languages? I don't know, for me they seem different but it is
maybe that by peaking frensh I know the uvular voiced fricative and that I
can easily notice that the other is different. Anyway, it must not be much
similar for others...

> > affricates    2      2       2       2      0     2     2      1
>
>Glottal affricates.  I like that, since a conlang sketch of mine (S6)
>had it.
Yes I like it too, it sounds special for the earers

> > nasals        1      1       1       1      0     1     1      0
>
>I cannot distinguish postalveolar nasals from alveolar ones.  Again,
>I'd go for retroflex instead.  And velar vs. uvular nasal is somewhat
>difficult, too.  (Colloquial Kalaallisut seems to have that contrast,
>however.)
yes... in fact it is only a mistake I wanted to place the 1 on the palatal
columnnot in the post-alveolar one. That way, the palatal column is totally
empty and useless, that's because there is only the nasal in it.

> >...
> > ejec/implo    2      0       2       0      0     2     0      0
> >...
> > There are also the voiced and unvoiced linguo-labial plosives
>
>Why no palatals?  (I mean, I don't especially like their sound, but my
>L1 contains a few, and Icelandic, which I like a lot, so why not?).
My mother tongue also has 2 palatals [J] and [j] and, as you probably read
higher, there's the [J] in my phonology that I had forgot

>Again, I don't know your design goal, so these are just unfiltered
>thoughts.
ho these are okay :)

Thanks for these commentaries

Replies