Conlang Random Thread

[Torco]

Would there be interest in a separate thread where people could post voice recordings of their conlangs? If someone started such a thread, would anyone post in it?

me tbh

[masako]

A couple of recordings of Kala:

link
ya Oyasemue, yomuani
/ja ojaˈʃɛːmʷe joˈmʷaːni/
VOC Oyasemue, morning-nice
Good morning, Oyasemue.

ke yempa netla yaponko
/kɛ ˈjɛːᵐpa ˈnɛːt͡ɫa jaˈpoːᵑko/
TOP table 1.s-P.3s.INAN build-PROG
I’m still building the table.

link
na uamepak ehe nkayohye ta tekue ma eya talone
/na waˈmɛːpak ˈeːɦɛ ᵑkaˈjoːɦʲɛ ta ˈteːkʷɛ ma ˈeːja taˈloːnɛ/
1s be.certain-ABIL-NEG but week-REC 2s order and perhaps be.patient-PROP
I can’t be sure, but you just ordered it last week, perhaps you should be patient.

link
ya tsepa, tena yoman ha’o opuamyo
/ja ˈt͡ʃɛːpa ˈtɛːna ˈjoːman oˈpʷaːmʲo/
VOC please 2s-P.1s day-ACC three finish-PERM
Please allow me three days to finish.

[Ahzoh]

Vrkhazhian has two grammatical genders, which are called masculine and feminine. However, the information conveyed by them are different depending on the nouns:

• When referring to humans, deities, and certain animals (e.g. animals of societal importance like cows and sheep), masculine refers to male entities while feminine refers to female entities.
• When referring to animals, masculine refers to wild animals while feminine refers to domesticated animals.
• When referring to plants and non-living entities and phenomena, masculine refers to more inanimate entities (e.g. rocks, trees) while feminine refers to more animate entities (e.g. fire, rivers, ivy).

[Emily]

working on an orthography for my modern gothic conlang and i'm trying to make a decision. basically the question is whether to have the spelling be more conservative and largely represent an earlier stage of the language (similar to english or french) or be more phonological and more explicitly indicate alternations between different sounds (similar to how belarusian indicates akanye, in contrast to russian, or dutch "groot" vs "grote"). my instinct is the former, but i'm not sure. the speech community is a small religious minority that predominantly lives in rural areas, somewhat similar to the amish or more conservative sects of mennonites (indeed, in the story that launched this project they were originally mistaken for mennonites), so on one hand a tendency towards conservatism makes sense, but on the other they wouldn't have a wide-reaching national-level literary tradition, language academy, etc. so i'm not sure which direction makes more sense. curious to hear others' thoughts

[masako]

@Emily,

Based on the description of the speakers, seems like it would likely be a mixture. That is, many of the more common words would have lost some of the orthographical history, where less frequent words would preserve their spelling by way of mainly being found in documentation.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

working on an orthography for my modern gothic conlang and i'm trying to make a decision. basically the question is whether to have the spelling be more conservative and largely represent an earlier stage of the language (similar to english or french) or be more phonological and more explicitly indicate alternations between different sounds (similar to how belarusian indicates akanye, in contrast to russian, or dutch "groot" vs "grote").

It would probably depend on the point at which literacy or printing became widespread enough to cause the orthography to begin to fossilise, and how many reforms had been conducted since then, if any. Even reform-resistant languages like English do undergo some orthographic change with time (Jane Austen writes dropt and dropped in free variation, choak, teaze, and a few other variant spellings that aren't coming to mind); sometimes, orthographic change can represent "correction" to an etymological form. Often such "corrections" are dubious — note delight (ME delite, delyte, though ultimately Late Latin delictare), the [ai] is simply from ME [iː], not from [ix~iç], as in light, fight and so on; choir (ME quere; note ME brere, frere > ModE briar, friar), of which one encounters sometimes an archaic spelling quire (which is more consistent with the modern orthography, though to match the other examples with the same sound change, one might expect quiar to emerge at some point), the modern spelling probably attempts to "restore" some of "chorus", to which it is etymologically related; also potentially rhyme, (ME rime, ryme), connection to rhythm being disputed.

....my instinct is the former...

When doing something creative, I think instinct is often a very useful guide.

i'm not sure. the speech community is a small religious minority that predominantly lives in rural areas, somewhat similar to the amish or more conservative sects of mennonites (indeed, in the story that launched this project they were originally mistaken for mennonites), so on one hand a tendency towards conservatism makes sense, but on the other they wouldn't have a wide-reaching national-level literary tradition, language academy, etc. so i'm not sure which direction makes more sense. curious to hear others' thoughts

You could have it both ways — in some areas they're a small religious minority, but there might also be a country of some size where a form of modern Gothic is used as a national language (depending on when the split happened, though, you could end up with a split language, having both a "Standard Gothic" and a "Pennsylvania (or wherever else) Gothic" that aren't mutually intelligible). You could also have the split happen much later, so the differences are more akin to Dutch and Afrikaans — the smaller religious minority might not have had the same tendency to conservative spelling as educated speakers in Europe, so the orthographies may have undergone some degree of accidental — or possibly deliberate, if the religious minority saw themselves as breaking away from some element of the original culture they didn't like — orthographic divergence that wasn't eventually undone by the influence of the majority language and culture.

[hwhatting]

Adding to what was said by others, in a religious community the orthography and language of the bible translation often obtain some kind of sacred status (e.g. see how Evangelical fundamentalists often quote King James instead of more modern versions). So you could make them have a canonical translation which goes back a couple of centuries (I don't assume they still use Ulfila's?) and where the orthography represents a somewhat more archaic state of the language.

[jal]

(...) be more phonological and more explicitly indicate alternations between different sounds (similar to (...) dutch "groot" vs "grote").

In Dutch, it's the spelling that alternates, not the sound. Both /o/ sounds are identical.


JAL

[Rounin Ryuuji]

(...) be more phonological and more explicitly indicate alternations between different sounds (similar to (...) dutch "groot" vs "grote").

In Dutch, it's the spelling that alternates, not the sound. Both /o/ sounds are identical.

I believe they're remarking the pronunciation of /groːt/ v. /groːtə/, or has Dutch lost its final schwa as English did?

[Moose-tache]

I think that's the point Emily was making. English -ote is used for historical reasons, while Dutch -oot is more logical for the modern pronunciation.

If Modern Gothic is used as aliturgical language, it could remain quite stable in its spelling. I don't think Hebrew or Coptic have changed their spelling much in the last thousand years. Centuries from now Hebrew may have changed quite a bit (since it's now a living language), but its spelling likely won't. Similarly, even the chaotic era of early modern printing didn't cause Spanish h to drop from spelling, or French... half their letters to drop from spelling. I think it's very possible that Modern Gothic could have fun historical spelling. And for even more fun, maybe there is a group of earnest revitalizers who insist on a modern spelling reform that no one uses! It could be like Cornish, but this time even worse.

What kind of historical spelling would be preserved? Is it the tense/lax distinction that became a stressed/unstressed distinction in the modern language?

[Rounin Ryuuji]

There's also a potential further complication — certain spellings can become fossilised for certain morphemes, or conventionalised in certain contexts, but not used in that way elsewhere.

In English, in words of Greek origin, words ending in -e, -es usually have them pronounced [iː iː] (note Hercules, Phoebe), though most of these are either proper names or technical terms, and those not heard often in speech may end up with spelling pronunciations. The Dutch suffix -lijk is pronounced [lək], the ending -tion is usually pronounced with some sort of /s/ or /ts/-like reading of "t" (some other similar words may also be effected, note French -cratie). Japanese particles は (wa) and へ (e) are written with characters normally read "ha" and "he".

You can also get piecemeal orthographical reforms that make some things more intuitive, but leave other ones as they are, especially if they are extremely common words (as with the Japanese particles). English seems to have gotten into the habit of writing what were Middle English /eː ɛː/ as ee ea at some point (Chaucer seemed not to mind writing them both as ee), and /oː ɔː/ as oo, oa, yet brooch has ModE /oː/, which we would expect to descend from ME /ɔː/, with the word spelled broach (the verb of this spelling is etymologically connected with the noun). The use of vowel + consonant + e to spell a long vowel in a final syllable or monosyllable also usually works, except that ME /eː ɛː/ usually both yield ModE /iː/ (except where /ɛː/ doesn't), but /oː ɔː/ yield /uː ou/ instead, so sometimes long /oː/ with a single-letter spelling ended up /uː/, as move, which rhymes with neither grove (which has the expected pronunciation, nor glove (which stems from "u" and "v" not being distinct in Mediaeval handwriting, and "o" being a common substitution for "u" where there was too much ambiguity). You would expect "move" to be either "moove" or "mouve" (especially since the verb is "mouvoir" in modern French, and French spellings of things are always so nice and shiny to English orthographers, apparently), and "glove" to eventually end up... well, we still seem averse to writing -v at the end of a word, except when we aren't ("rev, bruv, chav"), though two of three are slang spellings and so not likely to be thought suitable models for spelling proper words.

What was once a sensible spelling reform can also end up wrecked by unforeseen sound changes. Overlapping sound changes mean that our once-sensible ea is also now pronounced any of /ɛ ei iː/, note bread, break, bream, which we would expect with what we were taught in childhood to be bred, brake, bream (or breem; briem looks odd, though medial "ie" for [iː] as in shield, field, thief is also fairly common, though conflicting with terminal use in monosyllables, as pie, tie, and in the name Fiennes, in all of which /ai/).

The takeaway is, I suppose, that bits and pieces of the archaic Gothic orthography could get changed, but with some morphemes fossilised in archaic spelling, some words randomly passed over, and so on and so on.

[Emily]

Adding to what was said by others, in a religious community the orthography and language of the bible translation often obtain some kind of sacred status (e.g. see how Evangelical fundamentalists often quote King James instead of more modern versions). So you could make them have a canonical translation which goes back a couple of centuries (I don't assume they still use Ulfila's?) and where the orthography represents a somewhat more archaic state of the language.

this is an interesting idea! i can definitely see this being the kind of community where many families have bibles that are 200 or 300 years old

(...) be more phonological and more explicitly indicate alternations between different sounds (similar to (...) dutch "groot" vs "grote").

In Dutch, it's the spelling that alternates, not the sound. Both /o/ sounds are identical.

good catch, thank you!

What kind of historical spelling would be preserved? Is it the tense/lax distinction that became a stressed/unstressed distinction in the modern language?

there are two main questions i'm kicking around: one regarding consonants and the other regarding vowels

similar to german or russian, word-final obstruents devoice, so for example the word /mɑvɨ/ "language (gen sg)" alternates with /mɑfs/ "language (nom sg)". i've already decided that the spelling will indicate the underlying phoneme (as german and russian do), so these words would both be spelled with a <v>, instead of one with a <v> and the other with an <f>. the part i'm on the fence about, though, is that most noun and adjective roots undergo a palatalization of the final consonant of the stem in certain cases, but various sound changes since the original palatalization has led to significant merging: for example, the "palatal" consonant /ʃ/ can alternate with any of the "plain" consonants /t þ s x ts ç c/ (several of which are also palatal due to a different sound change!). so the question is whether to just represent them all as e.g. <sj>, or to have seven different ways to spell /ʃ/ depending on what consonants they alternate with. i think i'm probably going to go with the latter but i haven't quite committed yet

the other question i've been kicking around, and i still haven't quite made up my mind about, is how to represent certain sounds resulting from a recent vowel shift. in stressed open syllables, the vowels /a e i o u/ shifted to /au a e ɑ o/; declension leveling has extended these changes out beyond their original environment in quite a number of words, or reversed them instead. so the question is whether to 1) spell everything the way it would have been spelled prior to the vowel shift, 2) spell everything the way it's currently pronounced, or 3) keep the original written vowels but use some other device (like doubled consonants following the vowel) to indicate whether the "old" or "new" pronunciation is intended

[Man in Space]

Uarák éĝris iár ĝús, ör atkïr irü hé ĝús…

uarák

have

éĝris

satellite

iár

any.DIST

ĝús

1SG

ör

but.S

atkïr

ignore

irü

CONT.PERF

hé

3SG

ĝús

1SG

/ùàɹák éŋɹìs ìáɹ ŋús | ø̀ɹ àtkɯ̀ɹ ìɹỳ hé ŋús/
[ùàɹák éŋɹìs ìáɹ ŋús | ø̀ɹ àtskɯ̀ɹ ìɹỳ hé ŋús]

'I have a moon, but I ignored it…'

[Rounin Ryuuji]

月の 手居り、しかき 朕れ 在れっを 不く見け。
つくの たゐり、しかき いめれ あれっを ぜくみけ。
Tsuku no tayori, shikasche imere are wo zekumike.
[t̪͡s̪ʰʲýᵝˑ.kʰʉ̀ᵝ n̪ò̞ᵝ t̪ʰɐ̞́.jó̞ᵝˑ.ɾ̪ʲì | ɕʰì.kʰɐ̞́ːʃ íˑ.mè̞.ɾ̪è̞ ɐ̞́ˑɾ̪è̞ wò̞ᵝ z̪é̞.kʰʉ̀ᵝ.mᶣíˑ.cʰè̞]
moon SUBORDINATE-POSSESSUM have, however 1sg.NOMINAL 3sg.ACCUSATIVE not.ADVERBIAL.look-at.PAST
"I had a moon, but I ignored it."

[Emily]

finally settled on an orthography

More: show

phoneme inventory:
/m n ɲ ŋ/
/p b t d c ɟ k g/
/ʦ ʣ ʧ ʤ/
/f v θ ð s z ʃ ʒ ç ʝ x ɣ h/
/w l r ʎ j/
/a ɑ e i o u au/
of these, /ɣ ʝ ʧ ʤ/ are marginal, only occurring in certain environments due to recent sound changes, and are written as they would have been before the sound changes that created them

b

b

d

d

g

g

z

z

h

h, x

þ

θ

k

k

l

l

m

m

n

n

j

j

p

p

r

r

s

s

t

t

w

v

f

f

dþ

ð

n(g)

ŋ

u

w

<q> and <ƕ> only appear in words that descend from gothic words that originally had them; <q> represents /k/ or /g/, and <ƕ> represents /f/. likewise, <x> only appears in derivatives of the word "christ" where it represents /s/ (e.g. <xistos> /siʃtəs/). the letter <h> can represent either /h/ or /x/, which only contrast between vowels

genitive nouns (and probably adjectives and pronouns too when i finish them) change the final consonant(s) in a root to a palatal consonant (or descendant thereof). this is indicated simply with the letter <j> after the "plain" consonant:

• /ʃ/ is indicated with <tj>, <þj>, <sj>, and <hj>
• /ʒ/ is indicated with <dj>, <dþj>, <zj>, and occasionally also with <lj> or <rj> (though these usually indicate /j/)
• /j/ is indicated with <nj>, <lj>, and <rj> (in addition to <j> itself)
• /s/ is indicated with <kj> and <qj> (in addition to <s> itself or to <x>)
• /z/ is indicated with <gj> (in addition to <z> itself)
• /ʃt/ is indicated with <stj>
• /ʒd/ is indicated with <zdj>
• /st/ is indicated with <skj>
• /zd/ is indicated with <zgj>

to indicate /j/ after <t þ s h d dþ z l r n k q g>, use <i>

other palatal consonants are indicated by writing <i> or <j> before them (as with the /ʃ/ in <xistos> above):

• <t> becomes /ʦ/
• <k> becomes /c/
• <d> becomes /ʣ/
• <g> becomes /ɟ/
• <s> becomes /ʃ/
• <h> becomes /ç/
• <z> becomes /ʒ/
• <n> becomes /ɲ/
• <l> becomes /ʎ/
• <r> becomes /j/

all stops and fricatives devoice at the end of a word, but they continue to be written with the underlying voiced phoneme where appropriate

lastly, the vowels. the main vowels are /a e i o u/, but these shift to /au a e ɑ o/ in certain circumstances (originally in open syllables, but then this was extended throughout the root in most inflections). so basically, if a word is not inflecting (like a preposition or a conjunction), the vowel is pronounced plain if it is followed by two consonants or by one consonant at the end of a word, and shifted if it is followed by no consonant or by a consonant followed by a vowel. in inflecting words like nouns and verbs, however, it is plain if the stem (with all the endings removed) ends in two consonants and shifted if it ends in zero or one consonants (digraphs like <dþ> and <zj> count as one consonant; to double them, double the first letter: <ddþ, zzj>. basically, would the vowel be shifted if the stem was followed by a vowel? if yes, then it's shifted throughout the root; if no, it isn't, and you double the last consonant if there aren't two already

all of that is just for stressed syllables though. unstressed vowels reduce (from the plain forms) to /æ ɛ ɪ ɔ ʊ/, except in the final syllable of a word where /a o u/ reduce to /ə/ and /e i/ reduce to /ɨ/

btw this is all the romanization btw because it's easier to type and read than the actual gothic alphabet. when i refer to e.g. <w> i'm actually referring to <𐍅> etc.. full chart:

𐌰

a

𐌱

b

𐌲

g

𐌳

d

𐌴

e

𐌵

q

𐌶

z

𐌷

h

𐌸

þ

𐌹

i

𐌺

k

𐌻

l

𐌼

m

𐌽

n

𐌾

j

𐌿

u

𐍀

p

𐍁

*

𐍂

r

𐍃

s

𐍄

t

𐍅

w

𐍆

f

𐍇

x

𐍈

ƕ

𐍉

o

𐍊

*

* numerals only

some examples:

• <bwogs bwogos bwogoz bwogjes> /bvɑks bvɑgəs bvɑgəs bvɑzɨs/ "consensus, unity" (nom sg, nom pl, acc pl, gen sg)
• <bins bin binjis> /beɲs beɲ bejɨʃ/ "bee" (nom sg, acc sg, nom pl)
• <djizes djiz> /ʒeʒɨs ʒeʃ/ "spice" (nom sg, acc sg)
• <bwostews bwostewos> /bvóstɨfs bvɔstávəs/ "letter (of the alphabet)" (nom sg, nom pl)
• <jerots jerotos jerotjes jerotj> /járəts jɛrɑ́təs jɛrɑ́ʃɨs járəʃ/ "stag" (nom sg, nom pl, gen sg, gen pl)
• <spidos spidjos> /speʣəs speʒəs/ "axle" (nom sg, nom pl)
• <uaddos jaddjos> /wadəs jaʒəs/ "hand" (nom sg, nom pl)
• <qwas qwa qwone qwonjes> /gvas gvau gwɑnɨ gwɑjɨs/ "wife" (nom sg, acc sg, dat sg, gen sg)
• <qudþos> /koðəs/ "child, offspring"
• <rjigo> /jeɟə/ "rain"
• <xistos> /siʃtəs/ "Christ"
• <joxestos> /jɔsestəs/ "Christmas"

[jal]

finally settled on an orthography

Nice! What's the reason for <w> instead of <v> for /v/?


JAL

[Otto Kretschmer]

月の 手居り、しかき 朕れ 在れっを 不く見け。
つくの たゐり、しかき いめれ あれっを ぜくみけ。
Tsuku no tayori, shikasche imere are wo zekumike.
[t̪͡s̪ʰʲýᵝˑ.kʰʉ̀ᵝ n̪ò̞ᵝ t̪ʰɐ̞́.jó̞ᵝˑ.ɾ̪ʲì | ɕʰì.kʰɐ̞́ːʃ íˑ.mè̞.ɾ̪è̞ ɐ̞́ˑɾ̪è̞ wò̞ᵝ z̪é̞.kʰʉ̀ᵝ.mᶣíˑ.cʰè̞]
moon SUBORDINATE-POSSESSUM have, however 1sg.NOMINAL 3sg.ACCUSATIVE not.ADVERBIAL.look-at.PAST
"I had a moon, but I ignored it."

I'd like to see a translation of Battotai into this conlang lol

What is the background of it?

[Rounin Ryuuji]

月の 手居り、しかき 朕れ 在れっを 不く見け。
つくの たゐり、しかき いめれ あれっを ぜくみけ。
Tsuku no tayori, shikasche imere are wo zekumike.
[t̪͡s̪ʰʲýᵝˑ.kʰʉ̀ᵝ n̪ò̞ᵝ t̪ʰɐ̞́.jó̞ᵝˑ.ɾ̪ʲì | ɕʰì.kʰɐ̞́ːʃ íˑ.mè̞.ɾ̪è̞ ɐ̞́ˑɾ̪è̞ wò̞ᵝ z̪é̞.kʰʉ̀ᵝ.mᶣíˑ.cʰè̞]
moon SUBORDINATE-POSSESSUM have, however 1sg.NOMINAL 3sg.ACCUSATIVE not.ADVERBIAL.look-at.PAST
"I had a moon, but I ignored it."

I'd like to see a translation of Battotai into this conlang lol

That wouldn't exactly be my choice of material.

[Otto Kretschmer]

月の 手居り、しかき 朕れ 在れっを 不く見け。
つくの たゐり、しかき いめれ あれっを ぜくみけ。
Tsuku no tayori, shikasche imere are wo zekumike.
[t̪͡s̪ʰʲýᵝˑ.kʰʉ̀ᵝ n̪ò̞ᵝ t̪ʰɐ̞́.jó̞ᵝˑ.ɾ̪ʲì | ɕʰì.kʰɐ̞́ːʃ íˑ.mè̞.ɾ̪è̞ ɐ̞́ˑɾ̪è̞ wò̞ᵝ z̪é̞.kʰʉ̀ᵝ.mᶣíˑ.cʰè̞]
moon SUBORDINATE-POSSESSUM have, however 1sg.NOMINAL 3sg.ACCUSATIVE not.ADVERBIAL.look-at.PAST
"I had a moon, but I ignored it."

I'd like to see a translation of Battotai into this conlang lol

That wouldn't exactly be my choice of material.

What is it's background? Where is it spoken? When did it diverge from the rest of Japonic family?

How would you translate a sentence "Today I ate Fried Rice with meat for dinner" (jap. Kyō wa yūshoku ni niku to chāhan o tabemashita) into it?

[Rounin Ryuuji]

What is it's background? Where is it spoken?

I use it for a fantasy setting unconnected with our world.

When did it diverge from the rest of Japonic family?

If it were a real language, the divergence would've been sometime before Old Japanese.

How would you translate a sentence "Today I ate Fried Rice with meat for dinner" (jap. Kyō wa yūshoku ni niku to chāhan o tabemashita) into it?

That's an odd question, but —

朕れ 現日 宍とう 炒えけ 米を 夕飯で 食ゑけ。
いめれ けぶ ししいとう しやしやへけ ごうへを ゆふゑじいで かぶゑけ。
Imere kyobu shishi to shashaeki goyō yūyoji de kabeki.
[íˑ.mè̞.ɾ̪è̞ c͡çʰi̯ó̞ᵝˑ.bʉ̀ᵝ ɕʰíˑ.ɕʰì t̪ʰò̞ᵝ ɕʰɐ̞̀.ɕʰɐ̞́.é̞ˑ.c͡çʰì gó̞ᵝˑ.jò̞ᵝː jỳᵝː.jó̞ᵝˑ.ʑì d̪è̞ kʰɐ̞̀.bé̞ˑ.c͡çʰì]
1sg.NOMINATIVE present.day meat.COMITATIVE fry.PAST rice.ACCUSATIVE evening.meal(=dinner).INSTRUMENTAL eat.PAST

I'm not totally sure what you're looking for with this one, but a few probably noteworthy differences:

More: show

• 朕れ imere is distantly cognate to Japanese 己 (onore); a variant form, 俺れ imyore is also common;
• The words are in a somewhat different order; while they could be put in the same order as in the Japanese sample, Ineshîmé normatively places nominals in the nominative case as close as possible to the beginning of a sentence;
• Ineshîmé is not normally topic prominent in simple declarative sentences. A focus marker, あら (ara) does exist, but is highly emphatic;
• There are no Sinitic loanwords; Japonic elements 宍 (shishi) and 飯 (yoji) appear in place of cognates to the Sinitic elements niku and shoku; the translation also uses a rather formal term for "fried rice" (which is literal) — I imagine kids call it 炒米 shashagoe, or, even more informally, something like しやげふ shagyō;
• The word for "today" is spelled slightly differently — 現日 — but the elements are cognate to those in Japanese 今日 (note that the Japanese word has a classical spelling けふ kefu);
• The verb 炒ふ shashō is of onomatopoeic origin;
• Morphologically, many of the verb endings more resemble Classical than Modern Japanese, though Ineshîmé is sometimes pronominally innovative, having had the first-person singular forms from Proto-Japonic *wa lapse broadly into obsolescence;
• The Tesséki (Kana) spellings tend to reflect historical rather than modern pronunciation; some of the oddities are caused by an earlier stage of the language having both /e ɘ/ written with the e-row. A convention of writing a following え or い to indicate a full /e/ later developed, however this was simplified out when /e ɘ/ merged broadly in unstressed syllables, with /ɘ/ instead merging with /i/ after velars, and becoming /jo/ in prominent syllables. This is why け is read ki when unstressed, and kyo when stressed; several other e-row characters historically were used in this way, however they were generally changed to によ (nyo), ひよ (hyo), みよ (myo), りよ (ryo); /k/ decided, however, it wanted to be special, and so during a previous sound change, it had become [tɕʰ] before [i], consequently きよ was already the conventional spelling of cho (the "palatalisation" of *ti resulted in an assibilated form in *s₂i, originally distinct from inherited *s, which was probably [ʃ~s̺] at the earliest attested stage of the language, and at the time of [kʰi~cʰi] > [tɕʰi], [s̺i~ʃi] > [ɕʰ] also occurred, but did not affect [s̪i]; ちよ is a rare spelling, but would be read so, consequently, as ち is si, or, in unstressed syllables, frequently just s).
  
  In the same way, arcahically, a sound /ɵ/ was written with the o-row (/o~wo/ was usually written with a sequence of u row + wo); a large number of instances of historical /ɵ/ were lost. The o-row was often then used to write plain consonants, except that の よ お never have silent vowels; remaining instances of /ɵ/ merged with /o/, and came to be written with a following お or う (usually う) to indicate that it was pronounced. This convention persists to the present.
• The fantasy culture that speaks the language isn't nearly as "Japanese" as would probably be imagined, and is not a "fantasy counterpart culture" to the Japan of our world at any stage (especially not the one that produced Battokai, which most Ineshîmé speakers would probably find rather off-putting if translated); I simply like how Japonic languages and Japanese writing sound and look, respectively;