Let's create a good language!

[Hunting]

Since BokaBB's language entered The 1984 Campaign and is not a collabrative project at all, here.

We'll progress slowly, steadily, properly, and there will be no bullying. There will also be no Discord, no Google, and so on.

[fluffykitty]

Where should we start then? Phonology/phonotactics, orthography, morphology, lexicon, or syntax?

[Hunting]

Where should we start then? Phonology/phonotactics, orthography, morphology, lexicon, or syntax?

Phonology. Why would anyone want to begin wiht lexicon anyway? Only BokaBB would do that.

[Schiaparelliorbust]

Phonology. Why would anyone want to begin wiht lexicon anyway? Only BokaBB would do that.

Should I help? Definitely phonology. How similar will it be to Komal's?

[fluffykitty]

Phonology. Why would anyone want to begin wiht lexicon anyway? Only BokaBB would do that.

Boka didn't actually post any words until the second page, and wzkchem5 and Schiaparellio had already posted a few words at that point. Also, I think starting with lexicon and only lexicon would involve figuring out the meanings of potential words without actually deciding on their sounds/letters. That would probably get awkward very quickly, so we definitely shouldn't do that.

Should I help? Definitely phonology. How similar will it be to Komal's?

If we do go for something like Komal's, I think we should have more palatal sounds, so /c/ isn't all alone.

For phonology, if we include relatively complete parallel series of sounds (like /ptk/-/bdg/), we could make affixes or other things move sounds from one set to the other later (eg *<mat>->*<madef>, *<tsuk>->*<tsugef>). One possibility for something like this is a suffix that causes a preceding stop to affricate (eg *<ket>->*<ketsil>, *<wik>->*<wikxil>), and maybe does something else to other sounds.

[Schiaparelliorbust]

If we do go for something like Komal's, I think we should have more palatal sounds, so /c/ isn't all alone.

For phonology, if we include relatively complete parallel series of sounds (like /ptk/-/bdg/), we could make affixes or other things move sounds from one set to the other later (eg *<mat>->*<madef>, *<tsuk>->*<tsugef>). One possibility for something like this is a suffix that causes a preceding stop to affricate (eg *<ket>->*<ketsil>, *<wik>->*<wikxil>), and maybe does something else to other sounds.

I think more palatal sounds is definitely a good idea. I also really like the sound transformations and in-between sounds (that's what I'm going to call it). It is very common in Turkish, but it's not just because of that that I want it. Maybe we could have certain variations of suffixes to prevent words ending in certain consonants or preventing consonants/vowels to be next to sounds of the same type (basically if a word ends with a vowel and needs a suffix that starts with a vowel we can add a consonant in between). Can you also give the IPA symbol for x as in "axe"? I can't find it.

[fluffykitty]

I think more palatal sounds is definitely a good idea. I also really like the sound transformations and in-between sounds (that's what I'm going to call it).

I'm not really sure what you mean by "in-between sounds". Can you clarify?

It is very common in Turkish, but it's not just because of that that I want it. Maybe we could have certain variations of suffixes to prevent words ending in certain consonants or preventing consonants/vowels to be next to sounds of the same type (basically if a word ends with a vowel and needs a suffix that starts with a vowel we can add a consonant in between).

Epenthesis would probably be a good idea (eg my Komal <byo>+<-yo>=<byoyo> and the other verb suffixes aren't any better).

Can you also give the IPA symbol for x as in "axe"? I can't find it.

/ks/

[Saka]

I think more palatal sounds is definitely a good idea. I also really like the sound transformations and in-between sounds (that's what I'm going to call it). It is very common in Turkish, but it's not just because of that that I want it. Maybe we could have certain variations of suffixes to prevent words ending in certain consonants or preventing consonants/vowels to be next to sounds of the same type (basically if a word ends with a vowel and needs a suffix that starts with a vowel we can add a consonant in between). Can you also give the IPA symbol for x as in "axe"? I can't find it.

the "x' in "axe" is a /ks/ cluster.

Do you mean stuff like allophones and Sandhi?

(just google them, I don't think I'll do a good explanation (try "sandhi linguistics" if results are irrelevant))

I might help, but maybe not, I'll see how it turns out. And where should we host the spreadsheet / whatever?

[Schiaparelliorbust]

I'm not really sure what you mean by "in-between sounds". Can you clarify?

I already did. I didn't know what it was called. It's epenthesis. I know this isn't about phonology, but we should definitely have some longer words.

the "x' in "axe" is a /ks/ cluster.

Do you mean stuff like allophones and Sandhi?

(just google them, I don't think I'll do a good explanation (try "sandhi linguistics" if results are irrelevant))

I might help, but maybe not, I'll see how it turns out. And where should we host the spreadsheet / whatever?

Yes, I mean Sandhi.

[fluffykitty]

So far we haven't gotten anything concrete besides "more palatals" and "make sandhi possible". A completely regular system would be something like /fsçx/ /ptck/ /vzʝɣ/ /bdɟg/ /mnɲŋ/, but we probably want at least a little irregularity (eg some/all of /rlw/, fewer impractical-to-type sounds, etc).

[Schiaparelliorbust]

So far we haven't gotten anything concrete besides "more palatals" and "make sandhi possible". A completely regular system would be something like /fsçx/ /ptck/ /vzʝɣ/ /bdɟg/ /mnɲŋ/, but we probably want at least a little irregularity (eg some/all of /rlw/, fewer impractical-to-type sounds, etc).

What do you mean by "regular system"? I also need to study the anatomy of how these sounds are produced because I simply cannot make them right now.

[fluffykitty]

The sounds perfectly arrange into a 4x5 table by manner and place of articulation (unvoiced fricative/unvoiced stop/voiced fricative/voiced stop/nasal and labial/alveolar/palatal/velar).

[Schiaparelliorbust]

The sounds perfectly arrange into a 4x5 table by manner and place of articulation (unvoiced fricative/unvoiced stop/voiced fricative/voiced stop/nasal and labial/alveolar/palatal/velar).

Which of theses sounds do you want to use?

[fluffykitty]

We could eliminate phonemic voiced obstruents entirely and only have them show up as allophones of their voiceless counterparts (eg /tipon/->/tibon/). That would give us /fsçx/ /ptck/ /mnɲŋ/. We could also eliminate phonemic /ɲŋ/ (awkward to distinguish and difficult to romanize) and add /ljw/ (or some other combination of liquids, possibly onset-only so they don't mess up sandhis with affixes), which would give /fsçx/ /ptck/ /mn/ /ljw/, which seems like a nice inventory. For orthography, the only non-Latin alphabet IPA character now is ç, which we could either keep as ç, or represent some other way (if we do that, I propose <h>, since the two sounds are already pretty similar and that's how Old English did it). We still need to work out vowels though.

[Schiaparelliorbust]

We could eliminate phonemic voiced obstruents entirely and only have them show up as allophones of their voiceless counterparts (eg /tipon/->/tibon/). That would give us /fsçx/ /ptck/ /mnɲŋ/. We could also eliminate phonemic /ɲŋ/ (awkward to distinguish and difficult to romanize) and add /ljw/ (or some other combination of liquids, possibly onset-only so they don't mess up sandhis with affixes), which would give /fsçx/ /ptck/ /mn/ /ljw/, which seems like a nice inventory. For orthography, the only non-Latin alphabet IPA character now is ç, which we could either keep as ç, or represent some other way (if we do that, I propose <h>, since the two sounds are already pretty similar and that's how Old English did it). We still need to work out vowels though.

I can now pronounce velars but I still cannot pronounce /ç/. I still think we should have /ŋ/.

[fluffykitty]

I can now pronounce velars but I still cannot pronounce /ç/.

/ç/ may or may not appear in your pronunciation of "hue".

I still think we should have /ŋ/.

Okay, but how would we write it? The Latin alphabet only has two letters for nasals.

[Schiaparelliorbust]

I can now pronounce velars but I still cannot pronounce /ç/.

/ç/ may or may not appear in your pronunciation of "hue".

I saw that it was used in "hue" in some dialects, but I pronounce it with /h/.

I still think we should have /ŋ/.

Okay, but how would we write it? The Latin alphabet only has two letters for nasals.

We would write it as ng.

[fluffykitty]

How would that be distinguished from /ŋg/ then? Ambiguity is undesirable.

[Schiaparelliorbust]

How would that be distinguished from /ŋg/ then? Ambiguity is undesirable.

I guess you have a point. In English it seems to me that the /g/ at the end of words like "thing" and "sing" is sometimes dropped, but I pronounce it. When I look up how to pronounce thing, it says /θɪŋ/, so it entirely drops the /g/. Same for sing. Do you pronounce the g at the end or not?

[fluffykitty]

I don't pronounce the /g/s in "thing" or "sing". I also don't in "singer", but I do in "finger", which in writing only differ by one letter, far away from the cluster (the historical reason is that singer=sing+-er but not finger). We could make a rule that /g/ in word-final <ng> is silent, which would give an unambiguous (but fairly limited) phonemic /ŋ/.

[Schiaparelliorbust]

I don't pronounce the /g/s in "thing" or "sing". I also don't in "singer", but I do in "finger", which in writing only differ by one letter, far away from the cluster (the historical reason is that singer=sing+-er but not finger). We could make a rule that /g/ in word-final <ng> is silent, which would give an unambiguous (but fairly limited) phonemic /ŋ/.

Well the n in "English" is still /ŋ/ (don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to base our language on any existing one). Maybe before palatals it can be /ŋ/, and all other times it's /n/? I think n is /ŋ/ before palatals in English, which IMO makes it easier to pronounce, like /ɹæŋk/(rank). When I pronounce it, I can feel my tongue touching my back teeth, but when I pronounce, say, /naɪt/(night), I don't.
I also just learned that night has the same basic pronunciation scheme in most Indo-European languages, even in ones like Greek and Sanskrit. I love etymology.

[fluffykitty]

Well the n in "English" is still /ŋ/ (don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to base our language on any existing one).

Yes.

Maybe before palatals it can be /ŋ/, and all other times it's /n/?

Nasal assimilation is a good idea, but /ŋ/ is the velar nasal. The palatal one, /ɲ/, would match with /ç/ and /c/.

I think n is /ŋ/ before palatals in English, which IMO makes it easier to pronounce, like /ɹæŋk/(rank). When I pronounce it, I can feel my tongue touching my back teeth, but when I pronounce, say, /naɪt/(night), I don't.

Again, velars, but yes. This also happens to some extent with labials and alveolars, eg "input" /ɪmpʊt/.

I also just learned that night has the same basic pronunciation scheme in most Indo-European languages, even in languages like Greek and Sanskrit. I love etymology.

Interesting. You should post it on the fun facts thread.

[Entity Valkyrie 2]

can /j/ be j?
can /w/ be w?

Also, what about the vowels?

/a e i o u/?
/ai au ei eu oi/?

EDIT: Can the rhotic /r/ be the "whatever rhotic"? (i.e. not a specific rhotic)

Also, can anyone list all consonants, so that I can play jan Misali's game on it?
jan Misali: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJOh5F ... lEeWFBlD-w

[fluffykitty]

can /j/ be j?
can /w/ be w?

Well, that is what I suggested.

Also, what about the vowels?

/a e i o u/?
/ai au ei eu oi/?

You edited the post between me loading the page and clicking Reply. Neat. Also, /aeiou/ are probably going to be included, but I dunno about diphthongs.

[Schiaparelliorbust]

Maybe before palatals it can be /ŋ/, and all other times it's /n/?

Nasal assimilation is a good idea, but /ŋ/ is the velar nasal. The palatal one, /ɲ/, would match with /ç/ and /c/.

I found a Wikipedia article on assimilation, but not one one nasal assimilation. Could you give me an example? Or are the example words I gave already like that? Why does it matter whether we use the palatal nasal or velar nasal?

I think n is /ŋ/ before palatals in English, which IMO makes it easier to pronounce, like /ɹæŋk/(rank). When I pronounce it, I can feel my tongue touching my back teeth, but when I pronounce, say, /naɪt/(night), I don't.

Again, velars, but yes. This also happens to some extent with labials and alveolars, eg "input" /ɪmpʊt/.

I've never heard "input" pronounced like that, but okay. Turkish has some things like that too. N became m in many words before b like "penbe"→"pembe"(pink). Also try and pronounce "thin" with an extra g at the end. It definitely sounds different from "thing".

Interesting. You should post it on the fun facts thread.

Okay, I will. I also have a lot of other weird etymological facts that I can write there.