I need a bigger brain, can I borrow yours? or, Goblin Vowel System & Orthography

[zelda]

Background
I've been working on Goblin, a funky North Germanic language. Despite this language being reserved for a story most certainly on Earth, I wanted to ground it in a North Germanic look & feel, and why bother rebuilding the wheel?

Today I reworked the phonology with Ness's input, and that kind of broke the system I was working with. For instance, new consonantal phonological inventory is:

• Nasal: m n nʲ ɲ (ŋʷ)
• Plosives: g͡bʲ t d dʲ k g gʲ kʷ ʔ
• Fricatives: z ɕ ʑ ɣ ɦ ɦʲ
• Lateral: l ʎ̝
• Approximant: ʋ ɥ j

You'll notice some oddities. Like, what the flip happened to the labials? Well, beer money. Why is there one voiceless fricative and it's ɕ? Tax reasons. (lol the sound change history is going to be an interesting write up on this baby.)

But then I looked at the old broken vowel system [i æ æ̃ ə ɑ u], plus the syllabics [m̩ n̩ʲ l̩ n̩] (n̩ʲ is ʑ˞ in some dialects. No r, but a rhotic vowel -- why? Goblins, baby.) I decided to break it even further.

The Problem
Well, I loved the chiastic five-vowel system (four corners one center), but I decided, what if... who cares about front-back, high-low? What if the vowel system was defined primarily by a number of features, specifically rounded-unrounded / voiced ~ creaky / short ~ long / high ~ low pitch. Working on that assumption, I need something the IPA doesn't have so you'll yell at me, but I used [c o ɔ], as in, unrounded ~ semi-unrounded ~ rounded, giving a vowel system of:

• [ĉ̬ ĉ̬ː c̬ c̬ː č̬ č̬ː ĉ̰ ĉ̰ː c̰ c̰ː č̰ č̰ː]
• [ô̬ ô̬ː o̬ o̬ː ǒ̬ ǒ̬ː ô̰ ô̰ː o̰ o̰ː ǒ̰ ǒ̰ː]
• [ɔ̬̌ ɔ̬̌ː ɔ̬ ɔ̬ː ɔ̬̂ ɔ̬̂ː ɔ̰̂ ɔ̰̂ː ɔ̰ ɔ̰ː ɔ̰̌ ɔ̰̌ː]

Thirty-six vowels and front-back, high-low? Nowhere to be found. But they're there, buried in there somehow and I don't know how to bust it out and map this out on that mouth triangle grid, so there's something to ground it.

And orthographically, whoo boy. That's going to take a minute for me to figure out.

If any of you have a good suggestion on this approach, please. By all means. I'm listening.

[Ares Land]

Orthography is I think a matter of taste, especially with alien phonologies. Myself, I'd go for maximum readability, even at the cost of losing some of the alienness. So I'd have something like this:

	Labial	Alveolar	Post-Alveolar / Palatized	Velar	Labio-velar	Glottal
Nasal	m	n	ni ñ		(nu)
Plosive	b	t d	di	k g gi	qu	ʔ
Fricative		z	ç j	x		h hi
Lateral		l	li
Approximant	w			y u

As for the vowels, I'd use:
e a o

Long:
ee aa oo
Creaky Voice:
er ar or
High pitch:
es as os

Thirty-six vowels and front-back, high-low? Nowhere to be found. But they're there, buried in there somehow and I don't know how to bust it out and map this out on that mouth triangle grid, so there's something to ground it.

As indicated by the orthography, I think rounded vowels are going to be more fronted' than unrounded ones.
But mostly it'd depend on the neighboring consonants: /a/ in /ja/ will be realized as an higher, more fronted vowel than /a/ in /ka/.

[zelda]

Oh wow, there is nothing more than I can say about how much I love that. I also love the use of the r/s for creaky & pitch. If I move into CV territory with this language like I was hoping, this'd make good work! (And as well, I could build a historical spelling that uses final spellings.)

The i/u for palatalization and labio-velar consonants is genius -- though why <qu> and not <ku>? Other than historicity sake.

Lastly, the remark about that: I'll have to play around where the sounds land and do like a chart showing all the possible realizations of this system.

[Ares Land]

Ah, yeah, I just used qu out of habit, but you're right, ku would be even better. And that way you could even use q for the glottal step.

[bradrn]

I think I’d prefer a slightly different orthography. The consonants:

/m n nʲ ɲ (ŋʷ)/ ⟨m n ñ ɲ ŋ⟩
/g͡bʲ t d dʲ k g gʲ kʷ ʔ/ ⟨b t d đ k g j ꝁ q⟩
/z ɕ ʑ ɣ ɦ ɦʲ/ ⟨z c x ɣ h ɏ⟩
/l ʎ̝/ ⟨l ł⟩
/ʋ ɥ j/ ⟨v w y⟩

And the vowels:

[ĉ̬ ĉ̬ː c̬ c̬ː č̬ č̬ː ĉ̰ ĉ̰ː c̰ c̰ː č̰ č̰ː] ⟨eˉ eeˉ e ee eˍ eeˍ ẽˉ ẽẽˉ ẽ ẽẽ ẽˍ ẽẽˍ⟩
[ô̬ ô̬ː o̬ o̬ː ǒ̬ ǒ̬ː ô̰ ô̰ː o̰ o̰ː ǒ̰ ǒ̰ː] ⟨aˉ aaˉ a aa aˍ aaˍ ãˉ ããˉ ã ãã ãˍ ããˍ⟩
[ɔ̬̌ ɔ̬̌ː ɔ̬ ɔ̬ː ɔ̬̂ ɔ̬̂ː ɔ̰̂ ɔ̰̂ː ɔ̰ ɔ̰ː ɔ̰̌ ɔ̰̌ː] ⟨oˉ ooˉ o oo oˍ ooˍ õˉ õõˉ õ õõ õˍ õõˍ⟩

(I assume here that you’re using /ô/ for high tone and /ǒ/ for low tone; if that’s incorrect, just swap ⟨oˉ⟩ and ⟨oˍ⟩ in the orthography.)

EDIT: I made up a short sample text to see what this looks like:

/nʲč̬ːɕo̰ ɣɔ̰̌g͡bʲô̬ mǒ̬ːʎ̝ɔ̰̂ːʋc̰ ɦʲɔ̬̌ʔc̬ː kʷô̰/

Ñeeˉcã ɣõˍbaˉ maaˍłõõˉvẽ ɏoˍqee ꝁãˉ

And here’s Ares Land’s orthography for comparison:

Nieeçar xorbars maalioorswer hiosʔee quars

(Looks like that orthography is actually a bit deficient: if I’m interpreting things correctly, it looks like there are three tones, but that orthography only distinguishes two. Well, at least it’s easier to type than my one!)

[sasasha]

Love both theee suɡɡestions. I would be tempted to tweak bradrn's orthography thus:

High tone: Vi
Mid tone: V0
Low tone: Vu

Ñei cã ɣõubai maaułõõivẽ ɏouqee ꝁãi

It I were to keep tweakinɡ:

Creaky: v̀
Lonɡ: v́
Creaky lonɡ: v̌ (or v̂ if you prefer)

Ñei cà ɣòubai máułǒivè ɏouqé ꝁài

And more tweakinɡ, because I like consonant polygraphs for ease of reading:

/m n nʲ ɲ (ŋʷ)/ ⟨m n ny qn (qnu)⟩
/g͡bʲ t d dʲ k g gʲ kʷ ʔ/ ⟨qby t d dy k g gy qu q⟩
/z ɕ ʑ ɣ ɦ ɦʲ/ ⟨z c x r h hy⟩
/l ʎ̝/ ⟨l ql⟩
/ʋ ɥ j/ ⟨v w y⟩

Nyei cà ròuqbyai máuqlǒivè hyouqé quài

Here ⟨q⟩ represents either the ɡlottal stop, the suggestion of a coarticulated velar or palatal place of articulation. ⟨qby⟩ is a bit gross but "Goblins, baby".

Without knowing your phonotactics I don't know if this system would run into issues with clusters; if you have /ʔ/ syllable finally there would definitely be a problem.

[zelda]

Hrnnnnggggg that's the stuff right there. All of it, which is going to make it difficult to parse out which one's going to be the best to use.

I'm a huge fan of the lastmost example, especially ⟨r⟩ for [ɣ], plus the diactrics and vowel setup. I'll see which ones fit better when I have more of the grammar set up.

[sasasha]

Excited to see what you do with such an interesting phonology as a starting point!

[sangi39]

I was thinking something like:

m n nʲ ɲ (ŋʷ) <m n ņ ń ((g)w)>
g͡bʲ t d dʲ k g gʲ kʷ ʔ <(g)b t d ḑ k g ģ q ʻ>
z ɕ ʑ ɣ ɦ ɦʲ <z ş z̧ r h ḩ>
l ʎ̝ <l ļ>
ʋ ɥ j <v ᶌ j>

The diacritic is supposed to be either the "comma" diacritic as seen in Romanian, although I suppose that could be switched out for a plain cedilla or an dot (I just aesthetically prefer the comma)

/g͡bʲ/ and /(ŋʷ)/ are pretty much freed up as far as letters go, so no need to overcomplicate them, so what should be <gb̧> and <ngw> just get reduced down to <b> and <w>.

As for the vowels:

[ĉ̬ ĉ̬ː c̬ c̬ː č̬ č̬ː ĉ̰ ĉ̰ː c̰ c̰ː č̰ č̰ː] <í íí i ii ì ìì é éé e ee è èè>
[ô̬ ô̬ː o̬ o̬ː ǒ̬ ǒ̬ː ô̰ ô̰ː o̰ o̰ː ǒ̰ ǒ̰ː] <ý ýý y yy ỳ ỳỳ á áá a aa à àà>
[ɔ̬̌ ɔ̬̌ː ɔ̬ ɔ̬ː ɔ̬̂ ɔ̬̂ː ɔ̰̂ ɔ̰̂ː ɔ̰ ɔ̰ː ɔ̰̌ ɔ̰̌ː] <ú úú u uu ù ùù ó óó o oo ò òò>

High tone is marked with the acute, low tone with the grave, and mid-tone unmarked. Vowel roundness is marked by what should be front, central and back vowels in most other orthographies, and voiced vs. creaky is marked by what is typically high and low versions of a pair.

So, to take the example above, that gives:

/nʲč̬ːɕo̰ ɣɔ̰̌g͡bʲô̬ mǒ̬ːʎ̝ɔ̰̂ːʋc̰ ɦʲɔ̬̌ʔc̬ː kʷô̰/
<ņèèşy ròbý mỳỳļóóvi ḩùʻii qá>
or <ṇèèṣy ròbý mỳỳḷóóvi ḥùʻii qá> if you switch the cedilla out for a dot.

It is, unfortunately, a little accent heavy on the vowels, but then so is Pinyin, so I guess it's not unreasonable.

[Vardelm]

So, to take the example above, that gives:

/nʲč̬ːɕo̰ ɣɔ̰̌g͡bʲô̬ mǒ̬ːʎ̝ɔ̰̂ːʋc̰ ɦʲɔ̬̌ʔc̬ː kʷô̰/
<ņèèşy ròbý mỳỳļóóvi ḩùʻii qá>
or <ṇèèṣy ròbý mỳỳḷóóvi ḥùʻii qá> if you switch the cedilla out for a dot.

It is, unfortunately, a little accent heavy on the vowels, but then so is Pinyin, so I guess it's not unreasonable.

Perhaps the diacritics could appear only on the 1st vowel of a pair? That would make it easier to look at.

[sangi39]

So, to take the example above, that gives:

/nʲč̬ːɕo̰ ɣɔ̰̌g͡bʲô̬ mǒ̬ːʎ̝ɔ̰̂ːʋc̰ ɦʲɔ̬̌ʔc̬ː kʷô̰/
<ņèèşy ròbý mỳỳļóóvi ḩùʻii qá>
or <ṇèèṣy ròbý mỳỳḷóóvi ḥùʻii qá> if you switch the cedilla out for a dot.

It is, unfortunately, a little accent heavy on the vowels, but then so is Pinyin, so I guess it's not unreasonable.

Perhaps the diacritics could appear only on the 1st vowel of a pair? That would make it easier to look at.

I did think that, bit I guess it depends on vowel clusters or whether tones merge or anything like that

[zelda]

While I certainly do enjoy that transliteration, the number of dots is almost... overwhelming. Which isn't a bad thing.