Let's create a language with few phonemes!

A forum where anything goes. Introduce yourselves to other members of the forums, discuss how your name evolves when written out in the Game of Life, or just tell us how you found it. This is the forum for "non-academic" content.
BokaBB
Posts: 2645
Joined: December 30th, 2019, 11:55 am

Let's create a language with few phonemes!

Post by BokaBB » January 30th, 2021, 7:03 am

On vulgarlang.com or something like that I have recently created many new languages,some extremely simple and other extremely complicated.
That gave me an idea to make a more complete language here.
The language should have an extremely simple phonology,with the only vowel being /a/ (I may change that if needed) and also very few consonants. However,I want it to have a complex grammar.
This project shall be egalitarian and we shall make everything needed, including phonology (orthography should have a 1-1 correspondence with it),grammar and phonotactics.
Have a good day!

BokaBB

User avatar
Moosey
Posts: 4201
Joined: January 27th, 2019, 5:54 pm
Location: A house, or perhaps the OCA board. Or [click to not expand]
Contact:

Re: Let's create a language with few phonemes!

Post by Moosey » January 30th, 2021, 1:15 pm

I'm making a language with only /m/ /i/ /k/ /j/ phonemes for really really simple phonology
My CA rules can be found here

Bill Watterson once wrote: "How do soldiers killing each other solve the world's problems?"
Nanho walåt derwo esaato?

leaplife advertising bad!

BokaBB
Posts: 2645
Joined: December 30th, 2019, 11:55 am

Re: Let's create a language with few phonemes!

Post by BokaBB » January 30th, 2021, 3:27 pm

Moosey wrote:
January 30th, 2021, 1:15 pm
I'm making a language with only /m/ /i/ /k/ /j/ phonemes for really really simple phonology
Making yourself or proposing to me?
Have a good day!

BokaBB

fluffykitty
Posts: 1168
Joined: June 14th, 2014, 5:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Let's create a language with few phonemes!

Post by fluffykitty » January 30th, 2021, 5:41 pm

If your language doesn't have very many phonemes, then it's possible to write entire syllables with single characters (like in Chinese except not a nightmare to learn)

BokaBB
Posts: 2645
Joined: December 30th, 2019, 11:55 am

Re: Let's create a language with few phonemes!

Post by BokaBB » January 30th, 2021, 5:45 pm

fluffykitty wrote:
January 30th, 2021, 5:41 pm
If your language doesn't have very many phonemes, then it's possible to write entire syllables with single characters (like in Chinese except not a nightmare to learn)
If Moosey is making a language with only 4 phonemes (Pucking idea stealers!) we will likely have 3 then.
There will likely be many syllables and many of them long and words like mikkmikkmmkmikkimkimkimiimkimkmkm could possibly exist without language being agglutinative.
If he isn't and is suggesting,then it will be better.
Have a good day!

BokaBB

fluffykitty
Posts: 1168
Joined: June 14th, 2014, 5:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Let's create a language with few phonemes!

Post by fluffykitty » January 30th, 2021, 6:11 pm

Here's my proposal:
Phonemes: /m/ /k/ /i/
Phonotactics:
Onset can be empty (word-initally), /m/, or /k/
Nucleus can be /m/ or /i/
Coda can be empty, /m/, /k/, or /mk/
If the nucleus is /m/, then /m/ cannot occur in the onset or coda.
Any clusters between syllables produced by the above rules are legal, and the number of possible syllables is 13.

Code: Select all

i
mi
ki
im
mim
kim
ik
mik
kik
imk
mimk
kimk
m
km
mk
kmk
Allophone rules:
Non-geminate /k/ followed by /i/ is pronounced as [ts]
/m/ followed by [k] is pronounced as [ŋ]
/m/ followed by [ts] is pronounced as [n]
Non-geminate /k/ preceded by /m/ is pronounced as [g], except word-finally
For example: /imkkiiki/->[iŋkkiitsi], /imkikimkik/->[intsitsintsik]
Note that the above procedure is completely reversible, since every step produces a not-previously-occuring sound, so no new phonemes are introduced.
Here are the syllables after allophony:

Code: Select all

i
mi
tsi
im
mim
tsim
ik
mik
tsik
iŋg
miŋg
tsiŋg
m
km
ŋg
kŋg
None of the rules alter /i/. Any ideas on how we could do that? Maybe /i/ retracts to [ʊ] or something before /k/.
Last edited by fluffykitty on January 30th, 2021, 9:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Moosey
Posts: 4201
Joined: January 27th, 2019, 5:54 pm
Location: A house, or perhaps the OCA board. Or [click to not expand]
Contact:

Re: Let's create a language with few phonemes!

Post by Moosey » January 30th, 2021, 9:13 pm

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

Re: cif's phonology
imo the allophones distract from the minimalism.
My CA rules can be found here

Bill Watterson once wrote: "How do soldiers killing each other solve the world's problems?"
Nanho walåt derwo esaato?

leaplife advertising bad!

BokaBB
Posts: 2645
Joined: December 30th, 2019, 11:55 am

Re: Let's create a language with few phonemes!

Post by BokaBB » January 31st, 2021, 7:31 am

fluffykitty wrote:
January 30th, 2021, 6:11 pm
Here's my proposal:
Phonemes: /m/ /k/ /i/
Phonotactics:
Onset can be empty (word-initally), /m/, or /k/
Nucleus can be /m/ or /i/
Coda can be empty, /m/, /k/, or /mk/
If the nucleus is /m/, then /m/ cannot occur in the onset or coda.
Any clusters between syllables produced by the above rules are legal, and the number of possible syllables is 13.

Code: Select all

i
mi
ki
im
mim
kim
ik
mik
kik
imk
mimk
kimk
m
km
mk
kmk
Allophone rules:
Non-geminate /k/ followed by /i/ is pronounced as [ts]
/m/ followed by [k] is pronounced as [ŋ]
/m/ followed by [ts] is pronounced as [n]
Non-geminate /k/ preceded by /m/ is pronounced as [g], except word-finally
For example: /imkkiiki/->[iŋkkiitsi], /imkikimkik/->[intsitsintsik]
Note that the above procedure is completely reversible, since every step produces a not-previously-occuring sound, so no new phonemes are introduced.
Here are the syllables after allophony:

Code: Select all

i
mi
tsi
im
mim
tsim
ik
mik
tsik
iŋg
miŋg
tsiŋg
m
km
ŋg
kŋg
None of the rules alter /i/. Any ideas on how we could do that? Maybe /i/ retracts to [ʊ] or something before /k/.
Nice.Long i (ii) and hard m and k (mm and kk) should definitely exist I think. That would allow syllables like kkiimmkk to exist.
I think that we should remain simple and any phonetic changes should result in already existing sounds I think.
I think our rules should be extremely liberal to prevent us from having almost every word huge.
Have a good day!

BokaBB

User avatar
Moosey
Posts: 4201
Joined: January 27th, 2019, 5:54 pm
Location: A house, or perhaps the OCA board. Or [click to not expand]
Contact:

Re: Let's create a language with few phonemes!

Post by Moosey » January 31st, 2021, 10:05 am

BokaBB wrote:
January 31st, 2021, 7:31 am
Nice.Long i (ii) and hard m and k (mm and kk) should definitely exist I think. That would allow syllables like kkiimmkk to exist.
I think that we should remain simple and any phonetic changes should result in already existing sounds I think.
I think our rules should be extremely liberal to prevent us from having almost every word huge.
Have a good day!

BokaBB
what are the phonemes for long i and hard m and k? /iː/ for the first, I assume, but what would a "hard m" or "hard k" be?
My CA rules can be found here

Bill Watterson once wrote: "How do soldiers killing each other solve the world's problems?"
Nanho walåt derwo esaato?

leaplife advertising bad!

BokaBB
Posts: 2645
Joined: December 30th, 2019, 11:55 am

Re: Let's create a language with few phonemes!

Post by BokaBB » January 31st, 2021, 11:30 am

Moosey wrote:
January 31st, 2021, 10:05 am
BokaBB wrote:
January 31st, 2021, 7:31 am
Nice.Long i (ii) and hard m and k (mm and kk) should definitely exist I think. That would allow syllables like kkiimmkk to exist.
I think that we should remain simple and any phonetic changes should result in already existing sounds I think.
I think our rules should be extremely liberal to prevent us from having almost every word huge.
Have a good day!

BokaBB
what are the phonemes for long i and hard m and k? /iː/ for the first, I assume, but what would a "hard m" or "hard k" be?
/m/ and /k/ pronounced twice and having a hard effect.
Long /i/ is still not a new phoneme but two fused.
Have a good day!

BokaBB

BokaBB
Posts: 2645
Joined: December 30th, 2019, 11:55 am

Re: Let's create a language with few phonemes!

Post by BokaBB » January 31st, 2021, 11:48 am

Should our language be tonal?If it is that could greatly simplify our words but would not correlate with what I initially thought of.
Have a good day!

BokaBB

fluffykitty
Posts: 1168
Joined: June 14th, 2014, 5:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Let's create a language with few phonemes!

Post by fluffykitty » January 31st, 2021, 4:05 pm

BokaBB wrote:
January 31st, 2021, 7:31 am
Nice.Long i (ii) and hard m and k (mm and kk) should definitely exist I think. That would allow syllables like kkiimmkk to exist.
My proposal already allows for doublings.
BokaBB wrote:
January 31st, 2021, 7:31 am
I think that we should remain simple and any phonetic changes should result in already existing sounds I think.
If allophonic changes result in sounds which already exist (in contexts where they already exist), then they're not allophonic.
BokaBB wrote:
January 31st, 2021, 7:31 am
I think our rules should be extremely liberal to prevent us from having almost every word huge.
So like allowing /mk/ and /km/ in onsets, and consecutive /m/ nuclei? There's only so much you can do with three phonemes.
BokaBB wrote:
January 31st, 2021, 11:30 am
/m/ and /k/ pronounced twice and having a hard effect.
Long /i/ is still not a new phoneme but two fused.
Have a good day!

BokaBB
So like /mmʰ/ and /kkʰ/?
BokaBB wrote:
January 31st, 2021, 11:48 am
Should our language be tonal?If it is that could greatly simplify our words but would not correlate with what I initially thought of.
Have a good day!

BokaBB
If we were adding phonemes, I'd prefer /s/ and a vowel with a different quality, since /s/ can easily attach to the starts or ends of syllables and another vowel would allow better control of allophonic effects like palatalization.

BokaBB
Posts: 2645
Joined: December 30th, 2019, 11:55 am

Re: Let's create a language with few phonemes!

Post by BokaBB » January 31st, 2021, 4:35 pm

fluffykitty wrote:
January 31st, 2021, 4:05 pm
BokaBB wrote:
January 31st, 2021, 7:31 am
Nice.Long i (ii) and hard m and k (mm and kk) should definitely exist I think. That would allow syllables like kkiimmkk to exist.
My proposal already allows for doublings.
BokaBB wrote:
January 31st, 2021, 7:31 am
I think that we should remain simple and any phonetic changes should result in already existing sounds I think.
If allophonic changes result in sounds which already exist (in contexts where they already exist), then they're not allophonic.
BokaBB wrote:
January 31st, 2021, 7:31 am
I think our rules should be extremely liberal to prevent us from having almost every word huge.
So like allowing /mk/ and /km/ in onsets, and consecutive /m/ nuclei? There's only so much you can do with three phonemes.
BokaBB wrote:
January 31st, 2021, 11:30 am
/m/ and /k/ pronounced twice and having a hard effect.
Long /i/ is still not a new phoneme but two fused.
Have a good day!

BokaBB
So like /mmʰ/ and /kkʰ/?
BokaBB wrote:
January 31st, 2021, 11:48 am
Should our language be tonal?If it is that could greatly simplify our words but would not correlate with what I initially thought of.
Have a good day!

BokaBB
If we were adding phonemes, I'd prefer /s/ and a vowel with a different quality, since /s/ can easily attach to the starts or ends of syllables and another vowel would allow better control of allophonic effects like palatalization.
I saw you allowed doublings but not at the very beginning. I am not sure why I kept that.
We won't add anymore,we may possibly have tones if we wish so,that is what I said.
Are hard /m/ -s and /k/ -s another phoneme then or not?
I wasn't certain what allophony is and still mostly am not (Sounds that can replace already present sound without any difference in meaning?)
Have a good day!

BokaBB

fluffykitty
Posts: 1168
Joined: June 14th, 2014, 5:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Let's create a language with few phonemes!

Post by fluffykitty » January 31st, 2021, 5:16 pm

BokaBB wrote:
January 31st, 2021, 4:35 pm
I saw you allowed doublings but not at the very beginning. I am not sure why I kept that.
Initial geminates are difficult to hear AFAIK.
BokaBB wrote:
January 31st, 2021, 4:35 pm
We won't add anymore,we may possibly have tones if we wish so,that is what I said.
I still think /s/ and another vowel would be a good idea.
BokaBB wrote:
January 31st, 2021, 4:35 pm
Are hard /m/ -s and /k/ -s another phoneme then or not?
As long as they're completely predictable, no.
BokaBB wrote:
January 31st, 2021, 4:35 pm
I wasn't certain what allophony is and still mostly am not (Sounds that can replace already present sound without any difference in meaning?)
Yeah pretty much (eg how "truck" has a /tʃ/ sound, not a /t/ sound, or the aspiration difference between the "p"s in "pin" and "spin"). Since there's no difference in meaning, allophones don't count as additional phonemes, and so we can use them to make this language sound more interesting while still having a very small number of phonemes.

BokaBB
Posts: 2645
Joined: December 30th, 2019, 11:55 am

Re: Let's create a language with few phonemes!

Post by BokaBB » January 31st, 2021, 5:40 pm

fluffykitty wrote:
January 31st, 2021, 5:16 pm
BokaBB wrote:
January 31st, 2021, 4:35 pm
I saw you allowed doublings but not at the very beginning. I am not sure why I kept that.
Initial geminates are difficult to hear AFAIK.
BokaBB wrote:
January 31st, 2021, 4:35 pm
We won't add anymore,we may possibly have tones if we wish so,that is what I said.
I still think /s/ and another vowel would be a good idea.
BokaBB wrote:
January 31st, 2021, 4:35 pm
Are hard /m/ -s and /k/ -s another phoneme then or not?
As long as they're completely predictable, no.
BokaBB wrote:
January 31st, 2021, 4:35 pm
I wasn't certain what allophony is and still mostly am not (Sounds that can replace already present sound without any difference in meaning?)
Yeah pretty much (eg how "truck" has a /tʃ/ sound, not a /t/ sound, or the aspiration difference between the "p"s in "pin" and "spin"). Since there's no difference in meaning, allophones don't count as additional phonemes, and so we can use them to make this language sound more interesting while still having a very small number of phonemes.
We should be more extereme than Moosey I think.
Have a good day!

BokaBB

fluffykitty
Posts: 1168
Joined: June 14th, 2014, 5:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Let's create a language with few phonemes!

Post by fluffykitty » January 31st, 2021, 7:58 pm

Please only quote the parts of posts you're responding to. Also, we should start working on other parts of the language.

BokaBB
Posts: 2645
Joined: December 30th, 2019, 11:55 am

Re: Let's create a language with few phonemes!

Post by BokaBB » February 1st, 2021, 2:54 am

fluffykitty wrote:
January 31st, 2021, 7:58 pm
Please only quote the parts of posts you're responding to. Also, we should start working on other parts of the language.
Will try but that is time - consuming.
Let's create some basic vocabulary!
Have a good day!

BokaBB

fluffykitty
Posts: 1168
Joined: June 14th, 2014, 5:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Let's create a language with few phonemes!

Post by fluffykitty » February 1st, 2021, 4:27 am

How about <ik> "go", <-m> "-er", and <ikm> "person"? Also, another way we can distinguish words and stuff is stress. What do you think of that?

BokaBB
Posts: 2645
Joined: December 30th, 2019, 11:55 am

Re: Let's create a language with few phonemes!

Post by BokaBB » February 1st, 2021, 4:31 am

fluffykitty wrote:
February 1st, 2021, 4:27 am
How about <ik> "go", <-m> "-er", and <ikm> "person"? Also, another way we can distinguish words and stuff is stress. What do you think of that?
Pitch accent or what?I am not sure.
Have a good day!

BokaBB

fluffykitty
Posts: 1168
Joined: June 14th, 2014, 5:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Let's create a language with few phonemes!

Post by fluffykitty » February 1st, 2021, 4:41 am

A pitch accent would have more possibilities for distinguishing words, but I'm not sure if there's a nice way to write stuff like that without diacritics.
We could use something like <m(-)> for negation, since that's a pretty common thing. Also, we'll need pronouns at some point. I think that we should avoid distinguishing number, since pronouns should be short and we don't have very many short words. Maybe we could use <ikm> as a third-person pronoun. For the other two, maybe <ki> "I/we" and <mki> "you"?

BokaBB
Posts: 2645
Joined: December 30th, 2019, 11:55 am

Re: Let's create a language with few phonemes!

Post by BokaBB » February 1st, 2021, 4:45 am

fluffykitty wrote:
February 1st, 2021, 4:41 am
A pitch accent would have more possibilities for distinguishing words, but I'm not sure if there's a nice way to write stuff like that without diacritics.
We could use something like <m(-)> for negation, since that's a pretty common thing. Also, we'll need pronouns at some point. I think that we should avoid distinguishing number, since pronouns should be short and we don't have very many short words. Maybe we could use <ikm> as a third-person pronoun. For the other two, maybe <ki> "I/we" and <mki> "you"?
Interesting thoughts.
Maybe we can say 1 (proposal:mi) ki as I and many or multiple(proposal:mkik or kmik) ki as we?
Please tell me more about stress.
Have a good day!

BokaBB

BokaBB
Posts: 2645
Joined: December 30th, 2019, 11:55 am

Re: Let's create a language with few phonemes!

Post by BokaBB » February 1st, 2021, 4:52 am

A spreadsheet is needed now.
fluffykitty,I invite you to participate in Word Chains and in my brand new game Word Guessing as a sign of our reunion.
Have a good day!

BokaBB

fluffykitty
Posts: 1168
Joined: June 14th, 2014, 5:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Let's create a language with few phonemes!

Post by fluffykitty » February 1st, 2021, 4:53 am

BokaBB wrote:
February 1st, 2021, 4:45 am
Maybe we can say 1 (proposal:mi) ki as I and many (proposal:mkik or kmik) ki as we?
<mi> "one" and <kmik> "many" sound good.
BokaBB wrote:
February 1st, 2021, 4:45 am
Please tell me more about stress.
Stress is when you emphasize a particular syllable of a word, like in emphásize or partícular. If we use it in this language, then we can have words which only differ in the location of the stress (like English convíct/cónvict) so we can have shorter words.
BokaBB wrote:
February 1st, 2021, 4:52 am
A spreadsheet is needed now.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0

We could also have <-i> "-ing" (eg <iki> "going") and <i> "be" (so < ki i iki> "I am going"). We could indicate future tense using <ik> as in <ki ik iki> "I am going to go". Also, where should <m> go in a sentence? English usually puts its negations next to the verb, but we don't have to do it like that.

BokaBB
Posts: 2645
Joined: December 30th, 2019, 11:55 am

Re: Let's create a language with few phonemes!

Post by BokaBB » February 1st, 2021, 5:08 am

fluffykitty wrote:
February 1st, 2021, 4:53 am
BokaBB wrote:
February 1st, 2021, 4:45 am
Maybe we can say 1 (proposal:mi) ki as I and many (proposal:mkik or kmik) ki as we?
<mi> "one" and <kmik> "many" sound good.
BokaBB wrote:
February 1st, 2021, 4:45 am
Please tell me more about stress.
Stress is when you emphasize a particular syllable of a word, like in emphásize or partícular. If we use it in this language, then we can have words which only differ in the location of the stress (like English convíct/cónvict) so we can have shorter words.
BokaBB wrote:
February 1st, 2021, 4:52 am
A spreadsheet is needed now.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0

We could also have <-i> "-ing" (eg <iki> "going") and <i> "be" (so < ki i iki> "I am going"). We could indicate future tense using <ik> as in <ki ik iki> "I am going to go". Also, where should <m> go in a sentence? English usually puts its negations next to the verb, but we don't have to do it like that.
Okay. We would need some diacritics then, however (Or not?).
Let's make our number system. I want it to be base - 5, minuscule as the phonetics of our language.
M? You think about it as a negative?I guess it should be a preffix or something. However,we should make this language based more on particles than affixes I think.
Our nouns and verbs will likely be simple,but I want an element of complexity somewhere. What do you propose?
There is a website called Fonstruct, you can make a custom script there, altrough it is not a priority now.
Have a good day!

BokaBB

fluffykitty
Posts: 1168
Joined: June 14th, 2014, 5:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Let's create a language with few phonemes!

Post by fluffykitty » February 1st, 2021, 6:23 am

BokaBB wrote:
February 1st, 2021, 5:08 am
Okay. We would need some diacritics then, however (Or not?).
The language's phonology is simple enough that we could also use alternate characters for stressed nuclei (eg í->e, ḿ->n or something like that), or just use uppercase letters.
BokaBB wrote:
February 1st, 2021, 5:08 am
Let's make our number system. I want it to be base - 5, minuscule as the phonetics of our language.
I think we should use base 6 since it's nicer in a bunch of ways. Look up "seximal" if you want to know more.
BokaBB wrote:
February 1st, 2021, 5:08 am
M? You think about it as a negative?I guess it should be a preffix or something. However,we should make this language based more on particles than affixes I think.
If it's a prefix then we might have ambiguity between words beginning with /m/ and other words with an <m-> prefix. And yeah, using mostly particles is probably a good idea.
BokaBB wrote:
February 1st, 2021, 5:08 am
Our nouns and verbs will likely be simple,but I want an element of complexity somewhere. What do you propose?
Maybe we could use particles and auxiliary verbs to make a detailed verb system.
BokaBB wrote:
February 1st, 2021, 5:08 am
There is a website called Fonstruct, you can make a custom script there, altrough it is not a priority now.
Since this language has so few syllables, we should probably use a syllabary for it. What do you think the symbols should look like?

Post Reply