Zompist Bboard Again

Skjajræfæ's [ɕcɑ̽ˈɾʲæ.fʲæ] new phonology.

Consonants^{N1, 3}

	Bilabial	Labiodental	Alveolar	Retroflex	Alveolo-palatal	Palatal	Velar	Pharyngeal	Glottal
Nasal	m <m>			N <n>		ɲ <n>	N <n>
Plosive	p b <p, b>			T <t>		c ɟ <k, g>	k g <k, g>
Fricative		F <f>		C <c>	C <c>	ç <x>	x <x>	ħ <ċ>	h <ċ>
Affricate				T <t>
Approximant/flapN4		V <ḟ>	ɾ <r>	ɽ <r>		ç ʝ <ẋ, w>	x ɣ <ẋ, w>
Lateral				ɭ <l> ɭ ʈɭ <s, ṡ>		ʎ <l> ʎ cʎ <s, ṡ>

Vowels^{N2, 5}

	Front	Central	Back
High	I <i, í> Y <y, ý>	Q <(j)I/U(j)>	U <u, ú>
Mid	E <e, é>	ɿ <j>	O <o, ó>
Low	Æ <æ, ǽ>	Å <(j)A(j)>	A <a, á>

Notes
1. Come in broad-slender pairs depending on adjacency to back vowels, front vowels, and/or the glide vowel ([ɿ]; see below); broads being pharyngeal, retroflex, velar, or velarized ([ˠ]) and slenders being alveolo-palatal, glottal, palatal, or palatalized ([ʲ])
— Cover symbols represent the following freely-variable sounds:[N] is [ɳ~ŋ], broad [T, F, C, V] are [ʈ~ɖ, fˠ~vˠ, ʂ~ʐ, ʋ̥ˠ~ʋˠ], slender [T, F, C, V] are [ʈ͡ʂ~ɖ͡ʐ, fʲ~vʲ, ɕ~ʑ, ʋ̥ʲ~ʋʲ]. Additionally, retroflex flap, fricatives, laterals, and plosives once freely varied with velarized alveolars as the retroflex affricates and alveolo-palatal fricatives did with palato-alveolars
2. Central glide vowel, IPA [ə̯], used between a broad consonant and a front vowel or a slender consonant and a back vowel; pulls adjacent [I, U → Q] (ambiguously-rounded, near-high; [ʅ(ː)] without official IPA), pulls adjacent [A → Å] (near-low; IPA [ɐ(ː)]), is absorbed into adjacent [E], doesn't affect adjacent [Æ, O, Y]
3. Dotted orthographies, such as ḟ, are lenited. Of these, <ṡ> is always voiceless [ʈ͜ɭ̊˔, c͡ʎ̥˔]. Additionally, <s> is always voiceless [ɭ̊˔, ʎ̝̊]
4. [ɾ, ç, ʝ, x, ɣ] are [ɾʲ, ç˕, ʝ˕, x̞, ɣ˕]
5. [A, Æ, E, I, O, U, Y] represent [ɑ(ː), æ(ː), e̞(ː), i(ː), o̞(ː), u(ː), ʏ(ː)], of which [æ(ː)] are near-low, [e̞(ː), o̞(ː)] are true mid, and [ʏ(ː)] are near-high

Change of plans: rather than just throwing stuff at the wall, I'm gonna work from some combination of the ancient Common and Baikal phonologies. The orthographies below are, simply, computer-friendly, which means I designed my own conscripts a while back. However, I'm not sure if I still have them on hand. Even though this post could loosely fit into a challenge or collab thread, it's here for collection purposes. Thus—without transplanting every sound from one language into the other, how would you guys combine Common and Baikal into Proto-Skaran so I have something to work from? I'll be thinking of ideas as well. Just so you know /h/ still has friction.

Ancient Common
Consonants
/m n/ <m n>
/p b t d k g/ <p b t d k g>
/f~v s~z h/ <f c h>
/t͡ʃ~d͡ʒ/ <ć>
/l ɾ~r/ <l r>

Semivowel
/i j/ <i>

Vowels
/a ɑ e ɛ ɪ o ɔ u ʊ y/ <a á é e í ó o ú u y>
/aɪ̯ aʊ̯ ɔɪ̯/ <ai ω oi>

Ancient Baikal
Consonants
Phonemes
/m n/ <m n>
/p b t d k g/ <p b t d k g>
/f~v θ~ð s~z ʃ ç~x h/ <f þ c ш ч h>
/k͡s/ <ϡ>
/l ɾ~r/ <l r>

Sequence
[sv] <ә>

Semivowel
/i j/ <i>

Vowels
/a ɑ e ɛ ɪ o ɔ u ʊ y/ <a á é e í ó o ú u y>
/aɪ̯ aʊ̯ ɔɪ̯/ <ϝ ω ϙ>

I just thought of having articularily-adjacent voiceless fricatives/affricates alternate (cf. [f~θ]) in the protolanguage. I'm aware that Hawaiian does a restricted version of something like this with its /k/ being [k] initially but [t] elsewhere. Do any natlangs to something closer to my idea?

TurkeySloth wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:06 am I just thought of having articularily-adjacent voiceless fricatives/affricates alternate (cf. [f~θ]) in the protolanguage. I'm aware that Hawaiian does a restricted version of something like this with its /k/ being [k] initially but [t] elsewhere. Do any natlangs to something closer to my idea?

Spanish alternates liquids between rhotics and laterals (“lambdics”?).
So Latin “peregrinus” (traveler) became “pelegrino” became “pilgrim”.

Also, some Native North American language(s?) dissimilates some other pair of kinds of consonant. Sorry I cannot remember the details!

You might alternate fibilants with thibilants, or thibilants with sibilants, or sibilants with shibilants, or something.

I would believe it naturalistic and realistic.

Or you could alternate [l ] with [j ] or [w ].

I have a great idea of how Proto-Skaran's looks. But, I have one more question before finalizing it. Is {ʃ ç} merging to one of [ʂ], [ɕ], [ɹ̠̊˔], or [ɻ̊˔] plausible? If not, I'm just merging [ʃ → ç].

TurkeySloth wrote: ↑Mon Sep 09, 2019 4:06 am I just thought of having articularily-adjacent voiceless fricatives/affricates alternate (cf. [f~θ]) in the protolanguage. I'm aware that Hawaiian does a restricted version of something like this with its /k/ being [k] initially but [t] elsewhere. Do any natlangs to something closer to my idea?

not f~T but see here: https://linguistlist.org/issues/21/21-2719.html

TurkeySloth wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:50 pm I have a great idea of how Proto-Skaran's looks. But, I have one more question before finalizing it. Is {ʃ ç} merging to one of [ʂ], [ɕ], [ɹ̠̊˔], or [ɻ̊˔] plausible? If not, I'm just merging [ʃ → ç].

None of these seems too plausible to me except {ʃ,ç}→/ɕ/. Why? Well, /ʃ/ and /ç/ are both palatal sounds, so I can’t imagine them merging to a non-palatal sound. (I could be wrong though; maybe better ask in the Sound Change Quickie Thread.)

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:04 pm None of these seems too plausible to me except {ʃ,ç}→/ɕ/. Why? Well, /ʃ/ and /ç/ are both palatal sounds, so I can’t imagine them merging to a non-palatal sound. (I could be wrong though; maybe better ask in the Sound Change Quickie Thread.)

Actually, I think {ʃ,ç}→/ʂ/ is realistic too. You just have /ç/→/ʃ/ then /ʃ/→[ʂ]. The latter, although sounds weird, it's attested in proto-Indo-Aryan. Don't know about the latter. But if you have /s/→[θ], you may probably expand it to /ʂ/→[ɻ̊˔]. But, the only real world example that I know, English, has that sound came from /ɻ/. And for the latter one. I really don't know. But the phoneme itself looks unrealistic.

Xwtek wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 5:31 am The latter, although sounds weird, it's attested in proto-Indo-Aryan. Don't know about the latter.

Is one of those ‘latter’s supposed to be ‘former’?

bradrn wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 5:54 am

Xwtek wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 5:31 am The latter, although sounds weird, it's attested in proto-Indo-Aryan. Don't know about the latter.

Is one of those ‘latter’s supposed to be ‘former’?

According to Index Diachronica, the /ʃ/ > /ʂ/ one. The one that I don't know is the [ɹ̠̊˔], or [ɻ̊˔] one.

Xwtek wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 5:31 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:04 pm None of these seems too plausible to me except {ʃ,ç}→/ɕ/. Why? Well, /ʃ/ and /ç/ are both palatal sounds, so I can’t imagine them merging to a non-palatal sound. (I could be wrong though; maybe better ask in the Sound Change Quickie Thread.)

Actually, I think {ʃ,ç}→/ʂ/ is realistic too. You just have /ç/→/ʃ/ then /ʃ/→[ʂ]. The latter, although sounds weird, it's attested in proto-Indo-Aryan. Don't know about the latter. But if you have /s/→[θ], you may probably expand it to /ʂ/→[ɻ̊˔]. But, the only real world example that I know, English, has that sound came from /ɻ/. And for the latter one. I really don't know. But the phoneme itself looks unrealistic.

[ɹ̠̊˔] is the voiceless postalveolar non-sibilant fricative, which tends to occur in English <Cr> realizations, such as [tɹ̠̊˔iː] (never bare, though), and, while unattested, [ɻ̊˔] is the voiceless retroflex non-sibilant fricative.

As a way for Skaran, itself, to sound weird to us while remaining pronounceable, it'll have all non-sibilants. But, I dunno, exactly, how it'll get there.