Proto-Langs

[conlangernoob]

Hi! I’ve just finished the phonologies of the three main Proto-Langs in my world from which my future conlangs will be derived. These languages are intended to be naming languages which I might flesh out later. I’m just posting this in case anyone notices any MAJOR MAJOR mistakes before I move on to generating naming language level vocabulary and evolving it.

Proto-Lang #1

Consonants
Plosives: b, d, g
Fricatives: f, s, x
Nasals: m, n
Trills: r
Approximate: l

Vowels: a, e, i, o, u

Stress is on the penultimate syllable if the syllable ends in an obstruent or nasal but on the antepenultimate syllable if not. The maximum syllable structure is CVC. Note that hiatuses are allowed, but vowels can never be diphthongized.

A few constraints:
Only vowels and n, l, s, and d can end a word.
When two consonants from separate syllable are adjacent, they must follow these rules:
The first consonant of a pair of adjacent consonants must be “m”, “n”, “r”, or “l”.
Only labial plosives can follow “m”.
Only non-labial plosives can follow “n”. Note that /n/ is realized as [ŋ] before [k] or [g].
Only obstruents and nasals can follow /r/ or /l/.


Proto-Lang #2

Consonants
Plosives: p b t d k
Fricatives: f θ s x h
Nasals: m n
Approximates: l w
Trills: r

Vowels: e o a ə

Allophony: Fricatives and /k/ are intervocalically voiced. /n/ becomes [ŋ] before k or g

Stress: Primary stress falls on the first syllable of the word stem. In compound words, secondary stress falls on the first syllable of the second stem.

Phonotactics:

The rules for onsets can be summed up as follows:
All phonemes can be found in the onset position
Any voiceless plosive can follow s.
Any plosive or fricative can follow r or l, if it is not alveolar or velar.
When /h/ precedes /r/ or /l/, it is realized as /r̥/ and /l̻/ respectively.

Only vowels can be in the nucleus of a syllable.

The rules for codas can be summed up as follows:
All phonemes can be found in the coda position
Only alveolars can cluster in the coda position
Phonemes can only come after other phonemes of higher sonority in coda clusters,, with /r/ and /l/ treated as having the same sonority, as well as /t/ and /d/.


Proto-Lang 3

Consonants
Plosives: p, b, t, d, k, g
Fricatives: f, s, ʃ, x
Nasal: m, n
Trills: r
Laterals: l

Vowels: a, ɛ, i, o, u

Allophony: /n/ is realized as a velar nasal before velar plosives.

Phonotactics: Any consonant can be found in the coda or onset, and only vowels can be found in the nucleus position. There are no consonant clusters and the syllable structure is CVC.

[foxcatdog]

One thing to note is when languages have only 1 stop series they usually have a voiceless series with underlying voiced stops being to confined to a few examples i can't think off. Regardless it seems to unstable for a proto lang.

Also 2 of your 3 languages lack semivowels altogether and one only has 1 these are extremely common sounds.

[Travis B.]

One thing to note is when languages have only 1 stop series they usually have a voiceless series with underlying voiced stops being to confined to a few examples i can't think off. Regardless it seems to unstable for a proto lang.

I have to agree - it is very rare for a language to have a specifically voiced plosive series alone. Rather, if there is one series it tends to either be voiceless, or have both voiceless and voiced allophones.

[Travis B.]

Also note that almost all languages have high vowels of some sort or another, and if for some reason they do not have high vowels, they have semivowels instead (which are essentially the same thing as high vowels).

[foxcatdog]

Also note that almost all languages have high vowels of some sort or another, and if for some reason they do not have high vowels, they have semivowels instead (which are essentially the same thing as high vowels).

*i *u
*ə
*a

Is a more common 4 vowels system and i can't think of any languages with *e *ə *o but i can attribute it to quirks of the proto language.

[bradrn]

One thing to note is when languages have only 1 stop series they usually have a voiceless series with underlying voiced stops being to confined to a few examples i can't think off. Regardless it seems to unstable for a proto lang.

I have to agree - it is very rare for a language to have a specifically voiced plosive series alone. Rather, if there is one series it tends to either be voiceless, or have both voiceless and voiced allophones.

Australian Aboriginal languages have been transcribed with a single voiced series, where the allophones are predominantly voiced.

Is a more common 4 vowels system and i can't think of any languages with *e *ə *o but i can attribute it to quirks of the proto language.

Kalam has /e a o/, though it’s weird and has surface [i u] from underlying semivowels. Come to think of it, PIE is reconstructed with the same vowel system.

But /e ə a o/ with no semivowels or high vowels makes no sense — it’s just too crowded in the vowel space. I think this would turn into /i e a o/ or /i ə a u/ almost instantly.

(Incidentally, I wonder if conlangernoob might be interested in the Vowel Systems overview on the old board. Of course it’s not totally comprehensive, but it gives a good idea of the range of variation in natural languages.)

[Travis B.]

One thing to note is when languages have only 1 stop series they usually have a voiceless series with underlying voiced stops being to confined to a few examples i can't think off. Regardless it seems to unstable for a proto lang.

I have to agree - it is very rare for a language to have a specifically voiced plosive series alone. Rather, if there is one series it tends to either be voiceless, or have both voiceless and voiced allophones.

Australian Aboriginal languages have been transcribed with a single voiced series, where the allophones are predominantly voiced.

I am aware of these, but are these a case of truly underlyingly voiced vowel phonemes, or are they really a voicing-neutral vowel series which just happens to have voiced realizations more frequently than voiceless ones? Yes, you may call them "/b d̪ d ɖ ɟ ɡ/" rather than "/p t̪ t ʈ c k/" or like, but is this not just mere convention?

[bradrn]

Yes, you may call them "/b d̪ d ɖ ɟ ɡ/" rather than "/p t̪ t ʈ c k/" or like, but is this not just mere convention?

Indeed, it’s mere convention. But all phonemic representations are mere convention. Underlyingly, they’re unspecified for voicing.

[Darren]

I don't think there are any examples outside of Australia where only voiced stops occur - maybe Australian consonant phonologies lend themselves to voicing stops, possibly to do with the lack of fricatives. On the other hand, there are a couple of almost-rans outside of Australia like proto-Torres Banks and Kobon, both of which lost all but one of their voiceless plosives from lenition. By that logic protolang 1's inventory could be explained as having historical *p t k > *f s x or *f r x (both of which have their problems). A bit of research reveals that it's actually very similar the Yareban language Aneme Wake:

/b d kʰ ɡ/
/m n/
/f s/
/w r j/

Aneme Wake's ancestor had *p t k ʔ b d g for stops, but lenided the voiceless series:

p > ɸ
ti > si
t k > kʰ

The same source says that the sister language Moikodi had *t k > x, implying that its modern inventory is

/b d ɡ ʔ/
/m n/
/f s x/
/w ɾ j/

which is even closer (SIL disagrees and says it has /k/ but they're not always reliable). Protolang 1 is literally just this but without /ʔ j w/, so I'd say that the original inventory is actually ok - but I'd still suggest devoicing the plosives in the majority of descendants as it's not a very stable system. And if you feel like it you can say that pre-protolang 1 *p t k underwent unconditional lenition to *f x x, maybe chuck in [kʰ] as an allophone of /x/ for some extra flavour.

Wrt the /e ə o a/ vowel system, it's attested in Upper Chehalis (according to wikipedia) and Chinook Jargon, although /e o/ alternated with [i~ɪ~e~ɛ~æ u~ʊ~o~ɔ]. Again it's kinda ok but don't expect it to last long.

[bradrn]

Wrt the /e ə o a/ vowel system, it's attested in Upper Chehalis (according to wikipedia) and Chinook Jargon, although /e o/ alternated with [i~ɪ~e~ɛ~æ u~ʊ~o~ɔ]. Again it's kinda ok but don't expect it to last long.

For me, the bigger issue here is the additional lack of /j w/. Both Upper Chehalis and Chinook Jargon have those.

[Darren]

Wrt the /e ə o a/ vowel system, it's attested in Upper Chehalis (according to wikipedia) and Chinook Jargon, although /e o/ alternated with [i~ɪ~e~ɛ~æ u~ʊ~o~ɔ]. Again it's kinda ok but don't expect it to last long.

For me, the bigger issue here is the additional lack of /j w/. Both Upper Chehalis and Chinook Jargon have those.

Yeah, but in Chinook Jargon at least they just acted as consonants. I'm not sure if that would really have much of an impact on the vowel system, it's not like /j w/ were intruding on the vowel space. Either way I agree that adding /j/ would be sensible.

[alice]

(Incidentally, I wonder if conlangernoob might be interested in the Vowel Systems overview on the old board. Of course it’s not totally comprehensive, but it gives a good idea of the range of variation in natural languages.)

More: show

AAARRRGGGHHHH!!!! WHY MUST MY PAST KEEP COMING BACK TO HAUNT ME?????

[bradrn]

More: show

AAARRRGGGHHHH!!!! WHY MUST MY PAST KEEP COMING BACK TO HAUNT ME?????

Why, how is it haunting you?

[WeepingElf]

More: show

AAARRRGGGHHHH!!!! WHY MUST MY PAST KEEP COMING BACK TO HAUNT ME?????

Why, how is it haunting you?

I have a gut feeling that alice has an identity problem or something like that, but maybe I am overinterpreting things (in which case, sorry, alice). This user took down a set of pages about an entire conlang family years ago.

[alice]

I have a gut feeling that alice has an identity problem or something like that, but maybe I am overinterpreting things (in which case, sorry, alice).

You are a bit, but there's no need to apologize. It's just rather scary when people bring up stuff I wrote long ago as in some way authoritative, when I'm sure there are better resources out there (see also the Climate Cookbook).

Back on topic: /e a o ə/, with /i u/ as syllabic variants of /j w/, is attested in at least one language, although it is rather old.

[conlangernoob]

Thanks for all the replies! I will add /j/ to Proto-Lang 2, and then everything will be fine, right? By the way, the old vowel system thread will be very useful, thank’s a lot. The general idea I get from reading the replies is that, aside from the lack of /j/ is Proto-Lang 2, everything is fine, if unstable. Is that right?

Thanks again,

Conlangernoob

[WeepingElf]

I have a gut feeling that alice has an identity problem or something like that, but maybe I am overinterpreting things (in which case, sorry, alice).

You are a bit, but there's no need to apologize. It's just rather scary when people bring up stuff I wrote long ago as in some way authoritative, when I'm sure there are better resources out there (see also the Climate Cookbook).

Well, you probably took down the Sunovian language pages simply because you were no longer content with what you had done. I know that feeling - I am currently completely rebuilding Old Albic because my ideas about its origin and its degree of relationship to Indo-European have changed, and I no longer like its simple agglutinating morphology.

Back on topic: /e a o ə/, with /i u/ as syllabic variants of /j w/, is attested in at least one language, although it is rather old.

Ah, that language. Some scholars believe it is misanalyzed, though

[bradrn]

I have a gut feeling that alice has an identity problem or something like that, but maybe I am overinterpreting things (in which case, sorry, alice).

You are a bit, but there's no need to apologize. It's just rather scary when people bring up stuff I wrote long ago as in some way authoritative, when I'm sure there are better resources out there (see also the Climate Cookbook)

Wait, you wrote the Vowel Systems overview? In that case, thank you so much! I know it’s not authoritative, but it’s been so helpful to my learning nonetheless!

[alice]

Wait, you wrote the Vowel Systems overview? In that case, thank you so much! I know it’s not authoritative, but it’s been so helpful to my learning nonetheless!

Yes, it was me, and I'm glad you found it useful. It was a litte unnerving finding something very similar in Lass's Phonology, though, which had been written 20 years earlier.

[Nortaneous]

If they're protolangs, why are they reconstructed like that? They don't need to have realistic phonologies. PIE doesn't. Why does PIE have a vowel system of *e *o? Well, zero-grades let you get rid of high vowels, and laryngeal theory removes *ə and most *a, at which point remaining *a looks secondary.