Hmmm...

[TurkeySloth]

While I like the idea of having paired rounded and unrounded fricative vowels—not necessarily of the same height, I want the lang to sound decent without having triplicates of fricative and non-fricative vowels. Which two among /ʅ → ɪ/, /ʯ → ə̹/, and /ɿ → ɑ/ are most likely?

In languages with /ɿ/ as the only fricated vowel, it's usually analyzed as a high central vowel (Iau), but in Mandarin, where it can only appear after fricatives and affricates, it's often analyzed as the absence of a vowel altogether. In languages with both, frication can be seen as a *height* -- so /ɿ ʮ/ are higher than /i u/. But, given the phonetic realities, it's (probably) common for these vowels to become schwa, or some schwa-like central vowel. I don't know of any language where they just 'lower' to high vowels.

What I'm saying is that you could get *a vowel pharyngealization contrast* (or something along those lines) and develop /ɿ/ *and /ɿˤ/*, and then have them affricate some stuff and become /ə a/. (Where /a/ would pattern as a pharyngealized vowel.) Retroflexion doesn't have anything to do with it -- there are probably languages somewhere that contrast /ɿ ʅ/, but I don't think I've seen them.

If you want more solid precedent, you could see how Nuosu developed the vowels yr ur.

I'm dividing their genesis by the sound that formerly preceded them. Thus, while *r after consonants articulated at or before the alveolar ridge and mid or higher vowels yields [ə], possibly, preceded by an epenthetic voiceless affricate, *r after consonants articulated after the alveolar ridge and vowels lower than mid-height yields [ɐ̹], possibly, preceded by an epenthetic voiced affricate. For example, Urborg becomes Tηbag [t͡sə.bɐ̹k] and Yrel [jiː.ɹɛl] becomes Ϝηel [jə.ɛl].

[Zaarin]

I only know of this occurring to ejective fricatives (see Semitic). I've seen people cite this for implosives, but I'm not familiar enough with any language family with implosives to say myself.

Osage reflects Siouan *t’ as ts’, and Wintu has qx’ but no q’ or qx, suggesting it affricated. Apparently Hadza has kx’ and kxʷ’ but no k’ (or t’), but these can vary from plain ejectives to ejective lateral affricates to ejective fricatives. Also apparently qx’ occurs allophonically in Caucasian languages.

I see. /q/ > /qχ/ or even /q~qχ/ is extremely trivial, but the others, especially the Osage datum, is interesting. I wonder why that is? My intuition would have expected ejectives to be less likely to spirantize or affricate than plain plosives.

[Whimemsz]

I only know of this occurring to ejective fricatives (see Semitic). I've seen people cite this for implosives, but I'm not familiar enough with any language family with implosives to say myself.

Osage reflects Siouan *t’ as ts’, and Wintu has qx’ but no q’ or qx, suggesting it affricated. Apparently Hadza has kx’ and kxʷ’ but no k’ (or t’), but these can vary from plain ejectives to ejective lateral affricates to ejective fricatives. Also apparently qx’ occurs allophonically in Caucasian languages.

@Nort, thanks for the interesting info on fricated vowels. Why are they more likely to become schwas?

Osage actually reflects Proto-Siouan *s’ and *š’ as ts’. It does affricate *t’ to č’ before i/e but that's part of a shift undergone by the whole T-series (*ti/e, *hti/e, etc.), but elsewhere apparently retains t’ (as in Proto-Mississippi-Valley Siouan *-t’o "hold back" --> Osage <ábaṭ’u> */ápat’o/ or Proto-Dhegiha *t’óxa "humpbacked" --> Osage <a´baḳuṭ’oxa> */-t’oxa/ -- BUT interestingly, Kaw ts’óxa ??). However, I do note Wikipedia (lol) and native-languages.org don't list Osage as having a /t’/ phoneme so I'm not sure what's up with that.

(My sources on this are the Comparative Siouan Dictionary (2006) and "Regular Sound Shifts in the History of Siouan" by Rory Larson in Advances in the Study of Siouan Languages and Linguistics (2016))

[Zaarin]

I only know of this occurring to ejective fricatives (see Semitic). I've seen people cite this for implosives, but I'm not familiar enough with any language family with implosives to say myself.

Osage reflects Siouan *t’ as ts’, and Wintu has qx’ but no q’ or qx, suggesting it affricated. Apparently Hadza has kx’ and kxʷ’ but no k’ (or t’), but these can vary from plain ejectives to ejective lateral affricates to ejective fricatives. Also apparently qx’ occurs allophonically in Caucasian languages.

@Nort, thanks for the interesting info on fricated vowels. Why are they more likely to become schwas?

Osage actually reflects Proto-Siouan *s’ and *š’ as ts’. It does affricate *t’ to č’ before i/e but that's part of a shift undergone by the whole T-series (*ti/e, *hti/e, etc.), but elsewhere apparently retains t’ (as in Proto-Mississippi-Valley Siouan *-t’o "hold back" --> Osage <ábaṭ’u> */ápat’o/ or Proto-Dhegiha *t’óxa "humpbacked" --> Osage <a´baḳuṭ’oxa> */-t’oxa/ -- BUT interestingly, Kaw ts’óxa ??). However, I do note Wikipedia (lol) and native-languages.org don't list Osage as having a /t’/ phoneme so I'm not sure what's up with that.

(My sources on this are the Comparative Siouan Dictionary (2006) and "Regular Sound Shifts in the History of Siouan" by Rory Larson in Advances in the Study of Siouan Languages and Linguistics (2016))

In which case the Siouan evidence is in line with the Semitic evidence.

[TurkeySloth]

The lang now has a seven vowel base system (/ɑ(ː) ɐ̹(ː) ɛ(ː) ə(ː) ɪ(ː) œ(ː) ʊ(ː)/). Is /ɐ̹(ː)/ more likely to be paired/contrasted, broadly speaking, with /ɑ(ː)/ or /ə(ː)/ in the syllabary grid?

Additionally, the lang's stress rule and pattern are below. Is there a better word with which to describe Áϙ than "syllable," considering Áϙ shouldn't carry stress?
Stress is on the first mora containing a long vowel or a geminated consonant. If no such morae exist, stress falls on the antepenult mora. Stress on one syllable words or words with less than three morae disappeared. For example:
Áϙ (public name) = a•a•ng = [ɑ̋̃ː]
kypy "temperance" = ky•py = [kʊ.pʊ]
Kwýpy "Archon Prime of temperance and restraint" = kwy•y•py = [ˈkʷʊː.pʊ]

[Nerulent]

Osage actually reflects Proto-Siouan *s’ and *š’ as ts’. It does affricate *t’ to č’ before i/e but that's part of a shift undergone by the whole T-series (*ti/e, *hti/e, etc.), but elsewhere apparently retains t’ (as in Proto-Mississippi-Valley Siouan *-t’o "hold back" --> Osage <ábaṭ’u> */ápat’o/ or Proto-Dhegiha *t’óxa "humpbacked" --> Osage <a´baḳuṭ’oxa> */-t’oxa/ -- BUT interestingly, Kaw ts’óxa ??). However, I do note Wikipedia (lol) and native-languages.org don't list Osage as having a /t’/ phoneme so I'm not sure what's up with that.

(My sources on this are the Comparative Siouan Dictionary (2006) and "Regular Sound Shifts in the History of Siouan" by Rory Larson in Advances in the Study of Siouan Languages and Linguistics (2016))

Ah okay, I was just going off Wikipedia which specifically says that *t’ is reflected as ts’. My bad.

[TurkeySloth]

My conlang contrasts the affrication of coronal plosives and fricatives with the labio-palatalization of all other consonants. Is something like this attested?

In other news, while contrasting schwas (/ə̜ ə̹/) are unattested, I took the advice given in this thread about the likelihood of fricative vowels becoming schwa-like and shifted the rounded fricative vowel to /ə̹/ rather than a lower vowel, such as /ɐ̹/.

[Whimemsz]

My conlang contrasts the affrication of coronal plosives and fricatives with the labio-palatalization of all other consonants. Is something like this attested?

What do you mean by this? Do you mean (a) all coronal "plosives and fricatives" are "affricated" while consonants at all other POAs are "labio-palatalized", or (b) coronal plosives and fricatives contrast between "plain" and "affricated" while consonants at other POAs contrast between "plain" and "labio-palatalized"?

Either way, an "affricated fricative" doesn't make any sense.

[TurkeySloth]

My conlang contrasts the affrication of coronal plosives and fricatives with the labio-palatalization of all other consonants. Is something like this attested?

What do you mean by this? Do you mean (a) all coronal "plosives and fricatives" are "affricated" while consonants at all other POAs are "labio-palatalized", or (b) coronal plosives and fricatives contrast between "plain" and "affricated" while consonants at other POAs contrast between "plain" and "labio-palatalized"?

Either way, an "affricated fricative" doesn't make any sense.

Knew I was forgetting something. I meant the first option, including the lateral fricatives. To expand on that explanation, the former fricative vowels, now [ə̜(ː) ə̹(ː)], affricated [t d] while reflecting [ʃ ʒ ɬ ɮ] as affricates when they lost friction. These six consonants aren't labialized or labio-palatalized before [ʏ(ː) œ(ː)], like the other eight consonants ([j] becoming [ɥ]).

[TurkeySloth]

Current phonologies

Notes
1. (both) Just Romanized to lessen my work load
2. (both) Allophones share their parent sound's Romanization unless noted.
3. (both) /ɴ/ is moraic with varying realizations. While it may surface as <m n ng~nk>, those are realized as tone for nasal vowels ([Ṽ̀] (grave and tilde) for <m>, [V̄̃] for <n>, or [Ṽ́] (acute and tilde) for <nk~ng>). [ɬ] surfaces as <lf> in this situation.
4. (both) /ə(ː)/ originated as [C͡ɨ(ː)] with coronal friction and, thus, only affected coronals, such as [ɬ]. (Serpentine) [t̪] results from despirantization of {ʃ ʒ} and the accompanying merger with the reflection of {s s'}.
5. Borrowed from the serpentine language
6. Labials—such as [m] (glottalization), voicing (devoiced sonorants/ejective obstuents), labio-palatalization (dentalization), and rounding (unrounded, pharyngealized vowels) are anatomically impossible for anthropomorphic snakes. While the mora-onset labials have merged into /ʔ/, their former Romanizations remain. Ejectives, such as [s'], are heard as having [s] at the end when spoken by an anthropomorphic snake. (Substitutions are parenthetical.)

Official language
/m n/ <m n>
[mᶣ nᶣ]
/p b t d k g/ <p b t d k g>
[pᶣ bᶣ t͡s d͡z kᶣ gᶣ]
/ʃ ʒ ʡ͡ħ⁵/ <s z x>
[t͡ʃ d͡ʒ]
/j/ <j>
[ɥ] <jw>
/l ɬ ɮ/ <l fl vl>
[lᶣ t͡ɬ d͡ɮ]
/ɴ/ <q>
[p~t~ʃ~l~ɬ]

/ɑ ɛ œ ə ɪ ʏ/ <a e o æ i y>
/ɑː ɛː œː əː ɪː ʏː/ <á é ó ǽ í ý>

Serpentine language⁶
/n̥/ <n>
[n̪̊]
/t t' ʡ ʡ' ʔ/ <t d k g m~p~b>
[t̪ t̪']
/s s' ħ/ <s z x>
[t͡s t͡s' ʡ͡ħ]
/l̥ ɬ ɬ'/ <l fl vl>
[l̪̊ t͡ɬ t͡ɬ']
/ɴ/ <q>
[t~s~l̥~ɬ~ʡ]

/ɑ ɛ ɛˁ ə ɪ ɪˁ/ <a e o æ i y>
/ɑː ɛː ɛˁː əː ɪː ɪˁː/ <á é ó ǽ í ý>

[TurkeySloth]

My conlangs derive the names of concept-based deities through vowel lengthening and/or either prothesis of [ɰ]/[ʡ͡ħ] for null-onsets or affrication for consonant-onsets. For example, óϙny [ˈœːɬ.nᶣʏ]/[ˈɛˁːɬ.n̪̊ɪˁ] (to love) becomes Ϝóϙny [ˈɰœːɬ.nᶣʏ]/[ˈʡ͡ħɛˁːɬ.n̪̊ɪˁ] (associated envoy) and gala (justice) [gɑ.lɑ]/[ˈʡ'ɑː.l̥ɑ] becomes Gála [ˈd͡ʒɑː.lɑ]/[ˈʡ͡ħ'ɑː.l̥ɑ] (associated goddess). Is there a more concise way to describe these changes?

[TurkeySloth]

Are any of the following reflections viable after vowel defrication: [s͡l → ɬə], [z͡l → ɮə], [t͡l~t͡ɬ̤ → t͡ɬə], or [d͡l~d͡ɮ̤ → d͡ɮə]?

[Whimemsz]

Are any of the following reflections viable after vowel defrication: [s͡l → ɬə], [z͡l → ɮə], [t͡l~t͡ɬ̤ → t͡ɬə], or [d͡l~d͡ɮ̤ → d͡ɮə]?

Those are all reasonable, yes.

[TurkeySloth]

Are the phonologies below reasonable considering clicks existed in the Demonic tongue native to the setting's original planet?

Notes
1. (both) Just Romanized to lessen my work load
2. (both) Allophones share their parent sound's Romanization unless noted.
3. (both) /ɴ/ is moraic with varying realizations.
4. (both) /ə(ː)/ originated as [C͡ɯ(ː)] with coronal friction and, thus, only affected coronals, such as [s]. The alveolar [ʗ], dental [ʇ], and lateral [ʖ̬] clicks resulted from varying degrees of defrication.
5. Labials—such as [m] (glottalization), voicing (devoiced sonorants/ejective obstuents/aspirated clicks), and rounding (unrounded vowels) are anatomically impossible for anthropomorphic snakes. While the mora-onset labials have merged into /ʔ/, their former Romanizations remain. Ejectives, such as [s'], are heard as having [s] at the end when spoken by an anthropomorphic snake. (Substitutions are parenthetical.)

Official language
/m n/ <m n>
[ʘ̃ ʗ̃]
/p b t d k g/ <p b t d k g>
[ʘ ʘ̬ ʗ ʗ̬ ʞ ʞ̬]
/s z/ <s z>
[ʇ ʇ̬]
/j/ <j>
[ǂ̬]
/r/ <c>
[ʖ̬]
/ɴ/ <q>
[m~n~ŋ]

/ɑ ɛ œ ə ɪ ʏ/ <a e o r i y>
/ɑː ɛː œː əː ɪː ʏː/ <á é ó ŕ í ý>

Serpentine language⁵
/n̥/ <n>
[ʗ̃]
/t t' ʡ ʡ' ʔ/ <t d k g m~p~b>
[ʗ ʗʰ]
/s s' ħ/ <s z x>
[ʇ ʇʰ]
/ɾ̥/ <c>
[ʇ̃]
/ɴ/ <q>
[n̥~n̥ˀ]

/ɑ ɛ ɛ ə ɪ ɪ/ <a e o r i y>
/ɑː ɛː ɛː əː ɪː ɪː/ <á é ó ŕ í ý>