yangfiretiger121 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:04 am
Akangka wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 8:23 am
I wonder how is your anatomy of your speaker's mouth /notsarcastic? If possible, please give us spectogram on how the native speaker's saying each phoneme.
The palatal flap you pulled out came to be <r>through dissimulation. Originally, [ɾ̥~ɺ̥] was <r> and [c̆~ʎ̮̊] was <rj>. Then, [ɾ̥~ɺ̥ → ɬ → ʟ̝̊], eventually, shifting to <l> and [ʎ̮̊ → ʎ̝̊], eventually, shifting to <lj>. Thus, [c̆] was left alone at <rj> and simplified to <r>.
As for the spectrogram/graph, I don't have the necessary equipment.
I'm pretty sure that palatal flap is very difficult if not impossible to pronounce for human.
As of spectogram, you can make it up with photoshop. After all, your conlang is not spoken by human.
yangfiretiger121 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:04 am
While my first post here lacks phonotactics, morphology, etc., I know them but was more interested in getting the lang's inventory and orthography somewhere easy for the non-conlangers who need it to access than being complete about things.
Who is your target audience? Non-conlangers would find this phonology overwhelming and prefer the SAE phonology. On the other hand, a linguistic-aware readers demand completeness.
Although to be honest, I also only post phonology here. I do make grammar and morphology, but it's still on the development hell. It's very easy to make phonology, but then I stumbled on morphology and syntax. Even if the language is supposed to be language isolate and thus I don't have to make a protolanguage.
yangfiretiger121 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:04 am
I grouped the tone markings with the vowels because the diacritics would be above the vowels.
But you used tone letters, so it should not be a problem. I also separate the tone with the vowel, even though in my conlang tone and vowel is more intertwined (like navajo) and fewer (only two unless you count a downstep).
yangfiretiger121 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 10:04 am
Finally, why are notes on voicelessness and lip rounding better than correct phonemes?
No, it's not phonemes, it's phones. There is no voiced sound, so voicing is not a phoneme and you don't have to write it for phonemic analysis. Similarly for lip rounding. You can discuss the exact realization of phonemes in phonological tone. Also, it would be distracting to put voiceless diacritic to every vowel.
yangfiretiger121 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 28, 2019 8:01 pm
Generally speaking, the lang this evolved from was necessarily completely voiceless because I thought Starfinder's Nagaji, who spoke it from the start, were anthropomorphic snakes. Thus, the ancestor's original form only had voiceless coronal consonants and voiceless unrounded vowels due to real serpentine anatomy. I kept it voiceless because I like the idea of a voiceless language. It turns out Nagaji were created from us by naga, though.
Do your nagajis have vocal cords? If it's true, I generally expect your nagajis to have voiced vowel. Also are their teeth sharp? If so, I expect linguolabials. Due to the anatomy of the tongue, I expect more coarticulation. For example the linguolabial-alveolar coarticulation would be impossible for human, but not for nagaji. On the other hand, I expect that trill and flaps were impossible. If the tongues are narrow, stops would be impossible and everything would be a lateral. That's why I say you have to explain the mouth anatomy first to us before giving the phoneme.