Nice work, what did you use to create that table? It looks like wiki syntax.
I sometimes feel like conlangers don't have a "happy medium" between "this table is all the info you get on how verbs work" and "here's 10,000 words on how verbs work"

Nice work, what did you use to create that table? It looks like wiki syntax.
Thanks and yes, it's MediaWiki. (My favorite tool so far for tables)So Haleza Grise wrote: ↑Mon Dec 14, 2020 5:05 pm Nice work, what did you use to create that table? It looks like wiki syntax.
I sometimes feel like conlangers don't have a "happy medium" between "this table is all the info you get on how verbs work" and "here's 10,000 words on how verbs work"Congratulations on finishing! Must be a good feeling.
Oh, I think the problem is that the format makes it far, far too easy to minutely and finely filter and sort all these kinds of tags and fields. Without it, I'd probably be a lot less fussy and finicky and get "more progress" done instead.
Sure! Here's one I fiddled with last night (non-relevant fields deleted for space):
As I was running down the lexicon sorted by the \ge field, I saw there were a lot of "pot" entries, some just "pot"; also there was already a generic term for "pots and pans, cooking vessels" that I liked for the role.\lx kaba
\ps n
\de vessel, basin, bowl, trough; kettle, pot
\ge vessel
\ge basin
\ge trough
\ge kettle
\ge pot
\ge bowl
(I'm using Toolbox, though the MDF markup language you see here is shared by a number of applications.)\lx kaba
\ps n
\de large basin or vessel, trough, vat
\ge vessel
\ge basin
\ge trough
\ge vat
Oh, I wish it were... it's really just skimming down the sorted list, stopping when I spot homonyms, and briefly deciding whether "I meant to do that!" or to delete or modify something. It's maybe fifteen minutes, tops
I’d say it’s fine. (Precedents: Seneca has /t d k ɡ ʔ/, and Ket has /b t d k q/, both of which are pretty close. You may want to think about adding /b/ or /ʔ/ though.)
There aren’t too many individual consonants which are rare outside North America, other than /ɬ tɬ/. But there are some combinations of phonemes which have that property: given that you already have /χ/, I suggest /x/, given that a distinction between them is only really common in North America.I'm thinking of maybe adding one more consonant. I want something that's quite uncommon, but which is found in North America. But I don't want any lateral fricatives/affricates and nothing reminiscent of Arabic. Does anyone have any suggestions?
Both of those are fine precisely because they have plosives in three POAs.
Ah, I have /x/, but [X] only allophonically.bradrn wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 5:51 amThere aren’t too many individual consonants which are rare outside North America, other than /ɬ tɬ/. But there are some combinations of phonemes which have that property: given that you already have /χ/, I suggest /x/, given that a distinction between them is only really common in North America.