If natlangs were conlangs

[Vijay]

Even then I don't think it's that bad.

But then arguably, I don't think any natlang is that bad. *shrug*

[Man in Space]

All right, creator of Yidiny, a constraint requiring an even number of syllables in a surface word is creative, I’ll give you that, and actually pretty cool. But it’s totally unnaturalistic.

[bradrn]

All right, creator of Yidiny, a constraint requiring an even number of syllables in a surface word is creative, I’ll give you that, and actually pretty cool. But it’s totally unnaturalistic.

It doesn’t seem too unreasonable, actually. It’s basically a requirement that all feet have two syllables.

_______________

Unrelatedly, I see Jaques’s Japhug grammar is finally out, and once again I find myself impressed at the sheer strangeness of rGyalrongic languages. (It’s not often you see a >1000-page grammar with a whole section on ‘Remarkable features’.) As usual though, the most unusual bit is the phonology: for one thing, it’s slightly odd to allow syllables like /jla/ but not /lja/. (And how, exactly, does /jla/ differ from /ila/ phonetically?)

[Vijay]

Is it me, or isn't that sort of thing kind of common in Australian languages? Rules that operate only when the surface word has a certain number of syllables

[Nortaneous]

As usual though, the most unusual bit is the phonology: for one thing, it’s slightly odd to allow syllables like /jla/ but not /lja/. (And how, exactly, does /jla/ differ from /ila/ phonetically?)

I think the distinction between voiced fricatives and approximants is just not robust in the area. /ʝla/ or /ʒla/ wouldn't be odd. (cf. Hiw, which allows many syllables like /wla/ but doesn't contrast /w ɣʷ/)

[Kuchigakatai]

This reminds me, just yesterday I learned the Georgian so-called "/v/" is indeed sometimes [v] but otherwise often just labialization on the previous consonant, [Cʷ]... See (and listen to) the examples linked to from here. Particularly mc̣ḳrivi 'row, screeve' vs. tkven 'you guys', gvrc̣vrtni 'you (sg.) train us'. This makes the last example a lot less impressive.

[Zju]

This reminds me, just yesterday I learned the Georgian so-called "/v/" is indeed sometimes [v] but otherwise often just labialization on the previous consonant, [Cʷ]... See (and listen to) the examples linked to from here. Particularly mc̣ḳrivi 'row, screeve' vs. tkven 'you guys', gvrc̣vrtni 'you (sg.) train us'. This makes the last example a lot less impressive.

I can't help but hear [gut͡sʼɾ̥tʰunɪ] instead of [gʷt͡sʼʷɾ̥tʰnɪ] for /ɡvrt͡sʼvrtʰni/ when it's pronounced by the first speaker.

[Vijay]

This reminds me, just yesterday I learned the Georgian so-called "/v/" is indeed sometimes [v] but otherwise often just labialization on the previous consonant, [Cʷ]... See (and listen to) the examples linked to from here. Particularly mc̣ḳrivi 'row, screeve' vs. tkven 'you guys', gvrc̣vrtni 'you (sg.) train us'. This makes the last example a lot less impressive.

I can't help but hear [gut͡sʼɾ̥tʰunɪ] instead of [gʷt͡sʼʷɾ̥tʰnɪ] for /ɡvrt͡sʼvrtʰni/ when it's pronounced by the first speaker.

Maybe because she's pronouncing it very carefully. To me, it sounds like the [w] is separate from the [g] rather than secondary articulation.

[Raholeun]

That said, Saxon dialect is unequivocally the worst-sounding form of human vocalisation ever produced.

I consider it Trainspotting-German, since it reminds me of the film.

[Vijay]

Poor little Saxon!

[Zju]

Poor little Saxon!

Indeed, it's all stereotypes. Beauty is in the ears of beholder.

[Raphael]

Creator of English, do you think it's cute to have "kiss" and "kill" differ only in the coda? Do you think it's clever? It's neither.

[Emily]

if natlangs were conlangs then tolkien would ride

[Vijay]

Creator of English, do you think it's cute to have "kiss" and "kill" differ only in the coda? Do you think it's clever? It's neither.

You deaded it!

[Raphael]

Did the creator or creators of the major European languages have to come up with a word in English meaning "precious metals used as a financial investment" that, at least in its written form, looks a lot like a French word, also adopted as a loanword in German, meaning "broth"? It has the weird effect that I can't read English texts about certain aspects of financial history or current financial shenanigans without getting hungry.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

There's some chance the two words are related, if I'm remembering right.

[Raphael]

Yeah, I think they're both related to "to boil" and derived from a Latin word with roughly that meaning.

[bradrn]

Some fascinating sentences from an obviously ridiculous conlang French:

/ɛ a œ̃ a | œ̃ i e œ̃ ə e o a œ̃ ə œ̃ a œ̃ y ki sə sɥiv/
/ty a ɑ̃ o œ̃ u aerjɛ̃/
/ɔ̃n‿ɑ̃n‿a œ̃ ɑ̃ o ‖ ɛ̃/

(Sources: https://french.stackexchange.com/questi ... wel-sounds, https://french.stackexchange.com/questi ... by-natives)

[FlamyobatRudki]

english… has this bizzare undocumented phenomenon where one uses we when one means I but it's not royal we, but rather regular we but one feels need to use group as a means of defending oneself from criticism.

[Jonlang]

english… has this bizzare undocumented phenomenon where one uses we when one means I but it's not royal we, but rather regular we but one feels need to use group as a means of defending oneself from criticism.

Without an example I can't say I've ever experienced this. However, it's fairly common the UK for people to use "us" instead of "me"; "give it us" is a very colloquial version of "give it to me".