An IAL

[Travis B.]

But you only have syllable-initial plosives, so how English distinguishes coda occlusives is irrelevant.

In the English I am used to, the contrast of stressed non-intervocalic onset-initial plosives is mostly aspiration, while the contrast of unstressed intervocalic plosives, except for /t d/, is mostly voicing, with both contrasts operating for stressed intervocalic plosives, with non-intervocalic non-onset-initial plosives being neutralized, aside from vowel length allophony which operates in both environments (as initial plosives condition allophony in preceding words' final vowels).

[Qwynegold]

I have also thought about this thing, and would like to add that some languages have very different systems of allophony, which can really muddle things. Cf. e.g. Korean.

[Travis B.]

I have also thought about this thing, and would like to add that some languages have very different systems of allophony, which can really muddle things. Cf. e.g. Korean.

This is why I figured it would be best to be on the safe side and not use phonation or vowel length or like to distinguish segments.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

I would be generally inclined to agree. I might've gone with a four-vowel system, but the three is probably easier for a large number of target speakers.

[Travis B.]

I would be generally inclined to agree. I might've gone with a four-vowel system, but the three is probably easier for a large number of target speakers.

Were this not an IAL, I would include a vowel length distinction along with the three-vowel system (e.g. Arabic), but as this is an IAL, and there are too many language varieties which lack vowel length distinctions (e.g. most Romance, most Sinitic, many Slavic) or hijack vowel length for something else (e.g. many Anglic) that I felt I couldn't do th at.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

And yet the urge to be artistic, it beckons!

[Travis B.]

One thing to note is that coda /n/ can be realized as a nasal consonant, as nasalization of the preceding vowel, or both. It is sort of like Japanese /ɴ/ in this regard.

I am actually going to revamp the language so it has a standard V-shaped five vowel system, just because most common languages either have mid vowels as phonemes, or at least permit mid vowels as allophones (e.g. Mandarin, Arabic).

[kodé]

One thing to note is that coda /n/ can be realized as a nasal consonant, as nasalization of the preceding vowel, or both. It is sort of like Japanese /ɴ/ in this regard.

I am actually going to revamp the language so it has a standard V-shaped five vowel system, just because most common languages either have mid vowels as phonemes, or at least permit mid vowels as allophones (e.g. Mandarin, Arabic).

That’ll decrease your homophones, and still keep it sufficiently IAL-ly. A lot of varieties of Arabic have /e o/ from former /ai au/, so it shouldn’t be a huge problem.

[Qwynegold]

*thumbs up* In my experience here in Sweden, when Arabs get to a conversational level of Swedish they can produce at least five different vowels.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Swedish has a beautifully huge vowel inventory.

[Kuchigakatai]

It is useful to mention that in many Arabic dialects (modern Libyan, Egyptian, south Levantine, others), the descendants of the old short /ɪ ʊ/ are actually mid /e o/ [e o], even though they still get called "/ɪ ʊ/" (and "short i" and "short u") in linguistics works sometimes in order to emphasize their relationship with Classical Arabic's phonemes. The Classical short vowels were dropped at the end of words, but modern dialects generally have short word-final /i u e o æ/ anyway originating from other sources (long i /i:/, long u /u:/, reduced and conditionally raised -atun > -at > -ah > -a > /e/, the 3SG.MASC pronoun suffix -hu > /o/, and reduced -atun and /-a:/ > /æ/, respectively).

So besides the common ai au > e: o: change, you also have [e o] from other sources. And so comes Qwynegold's natural experience with how Arabs pronounce L2 Swedish in their accent.

[Travis B.]

It is useful to mention that in many Arabic dialects (modern Libyan, Egyptian, south Levantine, others), the descendants of the old short /ɪ ʊ/ are actually mid /e o/ [e o], even though they still get called "/ɪ ʊ/" (and "short i" and "short u") in linguistics works sometimes in order to emphasize their relationship with Classical Arabic's phonemes. The Classical short vowels were dropped at the end of words, but modern dialects generally have short word-final /i u e o æ/ anyway originating from other sources (long i /i:/, long u /u:/, reduced and conditionally raised -atun > -at > -ah > -a > /e/, the 3SG.MASC pronoun suffix -hu > /o/, and reduced -atun and /-a:/ > /æ/, respectively).

So besides the common ai au > e: o: change, you also have [e o] from other sources. And so comes Qwynegold's natural experience with how Arabs pronounce L2 Swedish in their accent.

This I figured, even though I was not entirely sure of the specifics (I knew about ai au > e: o: already).

[Travis B.]

Should I forbid /ej/ and /ow/ because some major languages do not contrast an /e/, whatever that might be, with an /ej/, and likewise an /o/, whatever that might be, with an /ow/ (take for instance Mandarin, which effectively only has an /ej/ and an /ow/), and rather permit both [e ej] as allophones of /e/ and [o ow] as allophones of /o/?

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Should I forbid /ej/ and /ow/ because some major languages do not contrast an /e/, whatever that might be, with an /ej/, and likewise an /o/, whatever that might be, with an /ow/ (take for instance Mandarin, which effectively only has an /ej/ and an /ow/), and rather permit both [e ej] as allophones of /e/ and [o ow] as allophones of /o/?

I think that would be advisable. Many North American dialects of English don't really have a distinct /o/ phoneme (except the prerhotic [ɔ(ː)]) that is distinct from /ou/ either; distinct /e ei/ [ɛ ej] are preserved, but only the latter can be in all positions); Spanish might be a counterexample, but I can't think of any Spanish words with an /ou/ diphthong; I also believe German has neither /ei/ nor /ou/.

[Travis B.]

Ordinal Numbers

Ordinal numbers are expressed by placing nouns so qualified with what could be described as a verb or a particle, te, after it, followed by the number in question. Note that wa can be used here, like a relative clause, but unlike a normal verb, te is unmarked for tense or aspect and cannot be used as a main verb.

[Travis B.]

Causatives

Causative are formed by placing the causing subject before maka, followed by the caused subject, followed by the remainder of the clause. Note that topics go before the causing subject. Also note that auxiliary verbs may be associated with either verb, aside from ones denoting tense and aspect, which go before maka. Take, for instance:

Mi ya maka kani tipan.
1S PST.PFV CAUS dog eat
"I made the dog eat."

Mi ya maka kani ay tipan eta.
1S PST.PFV CAUS dog NEG eat food
"I made the dog not eat food."

[Travis B.]

Some Useful Words

Here are some useful words, some of which I have used in my examples previously:

copula	yi
"become"	wera
"go"	yiti
"come"	kwema
"take"	nema
"eat"	tipan
"bite"	pita
"say"	sekya
"sit"	sitya
"stand"	sateya
"lie"	rikya
"hold"	kata
"push"	taryuka
"pull"	tena
"put"	satera
"catch"	pan
"walk"	rupa
"run"	rina
"milk"	raka
"food"	eta
"dog"	kani
"cow"	powi
"chicken"	kan
"child"	kinta
"son"	son
"daughter"	tota
"aunt"	anta
"uncle"	onka
"barn"	kuryu
"carrot"	myora
"stick"	lina
"rock"	rita
"grass"	karasa
"bone"	payna
"ball"	pora
"goal"	kora
"be.big"	pika
"be.blue"	paraw
"be.brown"	parun
"be.loud"	ruta
"be.round"	run
"paint"	parapa
"canvas"	kanwasa
"dinosaur"	taynasora

[Ryusenshi]

Great job, Travis!

But... there's something I don't like with your powers of ten.

one thousand	mirya
one million	miryon
one billion	piryon
one trillion	tariryon

You translated trillion by a calque of the English, which transparently uses the word for three. But... why "three"? An (American) English trillion is three of... what exactly?

Originally, in the long scale, things worked like this:

Name	Meaning	Value
one million	–	10^6
one billion	a bi-million, a million million	10^12
one trillion	a tri-million, a million million million	10^18
...	...	...
one N-llion	(one million)^N	10^6N

Several languages still use this system.

But, at some point, some scientists (a curse on them!) decided to use billion for 10^9 instead...

Name	Meaning	Value
one million	–	10^6
one billion	???	10^9
one trillion	???	10^12
...	...	...
one N-llion	???	10^3(N+1)

This system makes less sense (the conversion between the name and the power of 10 isn't as logical). It's the one used in the US, and there has been widespread confusion ever since, when you're not sure which system is being used. I've seen countless news articles translating US EN a trillion dollars to FR un trillion de dollars, even though a French trillion isn't the same as an English trillion.

A good IAL should certainly help reduce the confusion, not keep it! So I suggest you find something else.

• One possible solution would be to have a system based on multiples of 10^3 (not 10^6): so, for instance, 10^6 could be one tworya (i.e. a mirya mirya), 10^9 could be one tarirya, etc. That way, the conversion between the name and the power of 10 would be easier: N-rya means 10^3N.
• Another idea would be a system based on metric prefixes, so the word for 10^6 could be mega, 10^9 could be giga, and so on (I totally stole the idea from this article); unfortunately your IAL doesn't use voiced plosives so giga isn't possible, and kika would be too similar to kinka.

Sorry for the rant, it's a bit of a pet peeve.

[Travis B.]

• Another idea would be a system based on metric prefixes, so the word for 10^6 could be mega, 10^9 could be giga, and so on (I totally stole the idea from this article); unfortunately your IAL doesn't use voiced plosives so giga isn't possible, and kika would be too similar to kinka.

You know, I will run with this idea:

103	kiro
106	meka
109	keka (changed the vowel to disambiguate)
1012	tera
1015	peta
1018	eka
1021	seta
1024	yota

[Travis B.]

Action and Result Nominalizations

Action and result nominalizations are similar to complement clauses, but subjects and objects can both be omitted. These are introduced with the following particles:

action nominalization	re
result nominalization	no

Optionally these can be terminated with the particle wi used to also terminate complement clauses.