Phonemes for Azoi

[Travis B.]

I suppose that this might make more sense. would it make sense to have /j ɟ/ both allophone to [ʝ] and have /c/ = [ɟ] and /ç/ = [ɟ]? if so, would I just re-add /ɟ/ to the phonemes list to make it like so?

What conditions would you have /j ɟ/ neutralize under, and what conditions would you have /ɟ c ç/ neutralize under?

probably something alongside /c ç/ becoming voiced when placed between vowels and other voiced consonants, e. g. /æcʊ/ would become [æɟʊ], or /ɹçɲ/ becomes [ɹʝɲ], and so on. (note that Azoi isn't so complex as to allow for such a consonant cluster, this is just an example.)

This kind of thing is very common crosslinguistically, for the record.

as for /j ɟ/ becoming [ʝ], I'd imagine they would do so when placed adjacent to other fricative sounds, so /ʒja/ = [ʒʝa] and so forth.

One idea I have is to have /j/ become [ʝ] initially while /ɟ/ would become [ʝ] intervocalically, so the two would always contrast even though they would share an allophone overall.

As for [ʒʝ], these two are so close together that I would expect such a cluster to be highly unstable, and to quickly assimilate together to either [ʒː] or [ʝː].

[Skookum]

I personally like phonologies that have unusual/unexpected "gaps", since this happens in natural language all the time. It also gives you the opportunity to do some historical conlinguistics if you want, to figure out what kind of splits and mergers could create the gaps found in modern Azoi.

The only thing that stands out to me as odd is that you have /ɸ/ and /v/ as labial fricatives, constrasting in both voice and place of articulation. One thing I might suggest is that your <f v> could both be bilabial fricatives /ɸ β/ to maximize the contrast with the labiodental flap /ⱱ/.

[/nɒtɛndəduːd/]

I personally like phonologies that have unusual/unexpected "gaps", since this happens in natural language all the time. It also gives you the opportunity to do some historical conlinguistics if you want, to figure out what kind of splits and mergers could create the gaps found in modern Azoi.

The only thing that stands out to me as odd is that you have /ɸ/ and /v/ as labial fricatives, constrasting in both voice and place of articulation. One thing I might suggest is that your <f v> could both be bilabial fricatives /ɸ β/ to maximize the contrast with the labiodental flap /ⱱ/.

This would be something i'd do without a second thought, if it didn't leave /ⱱ/ all by itself in the labiodental column. it'd be fine, considering that most languages have indescrepencies like that, except that the language also has /ɹ/ and /ɾ/, which evolved in the same way and for the same reason as /v/ and /ⱱ/ in the rough draft of a history I have so far for Azoi. would there be any way to resolve this contrast without getting rid of /v/?

[sasasha]

I personally like phonologies that have unusual/unexpected "gaps", since this happens in natural language all the time. It also gives you the opportunity to do some historical conlinguistics if you want, to figure out what kind of splits and mergers could create the gaps found in modern Azoi.

The only thing that stands out to me as odd is that you have /ɸ/ and /v/ as labial fricatives, constrasting in both voice and place of articulation. One thing I might suggest is that your <f v> could both be bilabial fricatives /ɸ β/ to maximize the contrast with the labiodental flap /ⱱ/.

This would be something i'd do without a second thought, if it didn't leave /ⱱ/ all by itself in the labiodental column. it'd be fine, considering that most languages have indescrepencies like that, except that the language also has /ɹ/ and /ɾ/, which evolved in the same way and for the same reason as /v/ and /ⱱ/ in the rough draft of a history I have so far for Azoi. would there be any way to resolve this contrast without getting rid of /v/?

I personally wouldn’t be too concerned about having only one phoneme in the labiodental column, if it is /ⱱ/. /ɸ β/ is a far more balanced and stable set of labial fricatives than /ɸ v/, and phonemic inventories do tend towards balance and stability. As you know, /ⱱ/ is a flap. Having a different manner of articulation to the fricatives, it doesn’t IMO need to ‘fit in’ with them. It has another flap to be a flap with, which is good. As Skookum pointed out, /β/ and /ⱱ/ are well disambiguated by being distinct in both precise place and manner of articulation, sharing only voicing and general place of articulation, whereas /v/ and /ⱱ/ share precise place of articulation and voicing and only (rather minorly) distinguish manner.

In my variety of English, we only have one labiovelar consonant (/w/). It’s ok for it to be out on a limb, though, in rather a similar way that /ⱱ/ would make sense as an outlier in your inventory. It’s an approximant, so its manner of articulation is notable, and the labialisation harmonises with /u/ being a high back rounded vowel, and also helps disambiguate it from /v/.

You have reasons for designing the system as it is. But (a) your rhotics are not quite the same as your /v ⱱ/ situation, because /v/ is a fricative not an approximant, and (b) I wouldn’t be surprised, even if Azoi developed /ɸ v ⱱ/, for that to shift to /ɸ β ⱱ/ rather quickly due to the disambiguation reasons I noted.

malloc brought up Ewe, which is a good example of disabiguation in action. It is one of the few languages which distinguishes /ɸ β f v/, but its /f v/ are strongly accentuated with the bottom lip drawn up a lot higher against the teeth than in most languages’ labiodentals; a closer notation is [f͈ v͈].

[Travis B.]

I personally like phonologies that have unusual/unexpected "gaps", since this happens in natural language all the time. It also gives you the opportunity to do some historical conlinguistics if you want, to figure out what kind of splits and mergers could create the gaps found in modern Azoi.

The only thing that stands out to me as odd is that you have /ɸ/ and /v/ as labial fricatives, constrasting in both voice and place of articulation. One thing I might suggest is that your <f v> could both be bilabial fricatives /ɸ β/ to maximize the contrast with the labiodental flap /ⱱ/.

This would be something i'd do without a second thought, if it didn't leave /ⱱ/ all by itself in the labiodental column. it'd be fine, considering that most languages have indescrepencies like that, except that the language also has /ɹ/ and /ɾ/, which evolved in the same way and for the same reason as /v/ and /ⱱ/ in the rough draft of a history I have so far for Azoi. would there be any way to resolve this contrast without getting rid of /v/?

I personally wouldn’t be too concerned about having only one phoneme in the labiodental column, if it is /ⱱ/. /ɸ β/ is a far more balanced and stable set of labial fricatives than /ɸ v/, and phonemic inventories do tend towards balance and stability. As you know, /ⱱ/ is a flap. Having a different manner of articulation to the fricatives, it doesn’t IMO need to ‘fit in’ with them. It has another flap to be a flap with, which is good. As Skookum pointed out, /β/ and /ⱱ/ are well disambiguated by being distinct in both precise place and manner of articulation, sharing only voicing and general place of articulation, whereas /v/ and /ⱱ/ share precise place of articulation and voicing and only (rather minorly) distinguish manner.

In my variety of English, we only have one labiovelar consonant (/w/). It’s ok for it to be out on a limb, though, in rather a similar way that /ⱱ/ would make sense as an outlier in your inventory. It’s an approximant, so its manner of articulation is notable, and the labialisation harmonises with /u/ being a high back rounded vowel, and also helps disambiguate it from /v/.

You have reasons for designing the system as it is. But (a) your rhotics are not quite the same as your /v ⱱ/ situation, because /v/ is a fricative not an approximant, and (b) I wouldn’t be surprised, even if Azoi developed /ɸ v ⱱ/, for that to shift to /ɸ β ⱱ/ rather quickly due to the disambiguation reasons I noted.

I agree with all of the above.