Re: Is this a realistic phonology?

Sahla Autumn Yasmin Ajinqwai wrote:
> There are 27 consonants:
> >> [p],[t],[k] are voiceless aspirated stops.  [k] loses its aspiration
> after [s] and front vowels.  It becomes voiced b/w front vowels.
First of all, you've switched around slashes and brackets.  Slashes (//)
are used for phonemes, while brackets ([]) are used for phones.

Unreasonable.  It's unlikely (altho, maybe, possible) for only /k/ to
lose aspiration after /s/ (that is, and not /p/ or /t/), but it's
extremely improbably for frontness to have anything to do with
aspiration or voicing.  Voicing between any two vowels is reasonable,
but restricting it to front vowels is not.  Also, it's probably unlikely
that only /k/ would be subject to that voicing rule, and, I think,
impossible that voicing would be allophonic if voicing is phonemic for
other stops (/p/-/b/ and /t/-/d/)

> >> [b],[d] are voiced stops.  [d] is interdental /d[/, where [t] is
> alveolar.
I assume you mean dental for /d/?  *Inter*dental refers to sounds like
/D/ (as in bathe), interdental stops are unknown in the world's
langauge.

> >> [q] is a voiceless post-velar stop initially, except before front
> vowels, where it is an ingressive post-velar /`q/.  Medially, it is a
> voiced post-velar fricative /H/.
By post-velar, do you mean uvular?  Again, frontness is unreasonable for
phonation (whether it's ingressive, voiced, etc.).  It would be
reasonable for /q/ to become /k/ before front vowels, but not /q'/.  The
fricative allophone is reasonable.

> >> [f] [s] [h] [fw] [d'] [x] are fricatives /f/, /s/, /h/, /F/ (voiceless
> bilabial), /T/ (voiceless interdental), /S/ (voiceless palatal)
> respectively.
For orthography, angular brackets are used (<>).  Reasonable, altho
interesting use of <d'> for /T/, rather than, say, <t'>

> >> [c] [j] are affricates.  [c] is /tS/, but [j] can be /d3/ or /3/ (free
> variation).
Interesting, but reasonable.

> >> [m] [n] [g] are nasals. [g] is velar /N/.
Unreasonable, I think, to have only two voiced phonemic stops but three
nasals.  /N/ would probably tend to become denasalized, becoming /g/.

> >> [w] [l] [y] are liquids. (Is that the right word?)
Approximate is the word.  Liquids are /l/'s and /r/'s.

> >> [bb] is an implosive bilabial stop /`b/.
> >> [z] is a voiceless alveolar click /t!/ (occasionally nasalized in lazy
> speech).  It is an implosive alveolar stop /`d/ in some traditional
> dialects.
Hmm, you have phonemic implosives for bilabial and sometimes alveolar,
but it's allophonic for velar?  Unlikely.

> >> [b'] is a voiced bilabial trill /B/.
> >> [ql] is a post-velar affricate /qR/.
> >> ['] is the glottal stop [?].
Interesting orthography, but other than that, reasonable.

> Main questions:
> ! Is this more points of articulation than a natural language could have?
Heck, no.  There are languages with half a dozen or more places of
articulation.

> @ Are there too many fricatives?
Not at all.

> # Does the [bb],[z],[q] series seem unlikely to have evolved?
Not by themselves, but with their prescence, it makes that imlosive
allophone of /k/ less reasonable.

> There are 7 vowels:
> [i]                     [u]
> [e]=/E/    [eh]=/V/     [o]     [r]=/R/
>            [a]
> >> Rhoticisation [V +r] is phonemic except for [u] and [r].
> >> Tone (high,low) is phonemic except for [o] and [r].
> >> Length is phonemic in the dipthongs [ehi], [ehii], and rarely [a] and
> [aa]
Hmm, usually length is more thorough than that, frequently, but not
always, every vowel will have long/short contrast.  Also, nitpick on
your orthography: how would you distinguish between /ehi/ and /Vi/?
It's rare for diphthongs to contrast length, and, I suspect, unheard of
when other vowels don't.
>
> Main questions:
> ! Is it naive to call [r] a vowel?  There is no consonant form in the
> language.
It's not a *true* vowel.  The proper term is syllabic r (assuming you
mean the sound in some dialects in watER), but it acts like a vowel.

> @ About 15% of content words and 30% of "grammar" words so far use the
> high tone stress.  Shouldn't this be radically increased?
Not at all.

> # Is it less than likely that [ehi] /Vi/ and [ai] /ai/ would regularly
> contrast as minimal pairs as they do in this language?
I see no problem with that.

> How 'bout [ehi] and [oehi] /o@i/?
No problem there, as long as having three vowels in a row is okay with
you, go ahead.

> $ Is it less than likely that [r] /R/, [ehr] /VR/, and [ar] /aR/ can all
> be found in the same language as separate sounds? (although [ehr] amd [ar]
> never contrast minimally)
I don't think it's unlikely at all.  It's not what I would've picked,
but everyone has their own taste.

> % Anything else?
I'd be interested in seeing more about the grammar of this language if
you've worked that out.