"Hansenese" My Personal Artlang/Stealthlang

[storyteller232]

So in my last phonology, i had deleted /p/ and /b/ and this was my phonlogy consonant inventory /d f g h j k l m n r s t v w x z ð ŋ ɲ ɹ ʔ ʟ θ/ but I had researched why it was so rare to have a language with no /p/ or /b/ so i added it back in and i think that I am sticking with this phonology

Consonants: /b d f g h j k l m n p r s t v x z ð ŋ ɲ ɹ ʔ ʟ θ/
Vowels: /a aɪ e eɪ eʊ i o oɪ u ɔ ɪ ʊ ʌ/
Syllable Structure: (c)(c)v(c)(c)

i think it's set now...for real this time! lol! next up, finalizing cases and consonant clusters

[Zaarin]

Actually, it's not that odd for /p/ or /g/ to be missing--or both (see Arabic). As for missing /p b/, lacking labials is an areal feature of the Northeast (mostly restricted to Iroquoian specifically) and broadly in the Northwest, but seems to be rare elsewhere. Of course, the Pacific Northwest sprachbund is remarkable for a number of typologically weird features: large consonant inventories, ejectives (including ejective fricatives), lateral obstruents, lots of laterals but no lateral approximants, lack of nasals (in a small number of languages in the Puget Sound area chiefly), lack of labials, lack of /k/, large numbers of dorsal consonants, complex polysynthesis, highly specific locative affixes, tone (particularly in the northern part of the region), etc.

[bbbosborne]

gaps in plosives are most likely to be voiceless labials (as said above, in arabic) or voiced velars (finnish) or even uvulars.

[storyteller232]

I really need to pick a phonology and stick with it, otherwise I'll never have more than just a set of sounds...that i can't finalize because I keep changing it. I think on further consideration. This is the the phonology i like and want to go with, but would like thoughts on before i say for the millionth time "this is it!" Also what is your reaction to my vowel set?

Consonants: /b d f g h j k l m n r s t v w x z ŋ ɲ ɹ ʔ ʟ/
Vowels: /a aɪ e eɪ eʊ i o oɪ u ɔ ɪ ʊ ʌ/
Syllable Structure: (C)(C)V(C)(C)

Hansenee Consonants.JPG (36.3 KiB) Viewed 7948 times

[Travis B.]

pretty decent; i'd add a /k/ but that's just personal perference.
one thing i'd like to know: can you hear the difference between /e/ and /eɪ/?

So i looked at the two sounds again, and yes i can tell the difference easily. /e/ as in the english word "heck" /hek/ and "hey" /heɪ/ so i am adding it back in which is why i deleted the modified phonology and my first response to this.

That is because the "/e/" you refer to is in most English dialects, Inland North dialects aside, actually realized as [ɛ]. Calling it "/e/" is just some misleading notation that happens to be popular in certain circles in the UK.

[storyteller232]

That is because the "/e/" you refer to is in most English dialects, Inland North dialects aside, actually realized as [ɛ]. Calling it "/e/" is just some misleading notation that happens to be popular in certain circles in the UK.

So you're right, and I've corrected that. And am tweaking (again) the rest of my inventory.

[storyteller232]

I think i'm settling on

Consonants: /b d f g h j k l m n r s t v x z ŋ ɲ ɹ ʔ ʟ/
Vowels: /a aɪ eɪ eʊ i o oɪ u ɔ ɛ ɪ ʊ ʌ/
(C)(C)V(C)(C)

What do people think? What im going for is naturalistic (at least somewhat) and minimizing the number of sounds from english that people from other language backgrounds have trouble with.

The other question i had is the consonant cluster /t/ + /s/ the same as the phenome /ts/ and if so would it be cheating to include that cluster but not have the phenome in my inventory?

[Zaarin]

For those like me who can analyze consonants inventories better in IPA order:

/m n ɲ ŋ/
/b t d k g ʔ/
/f v s z x h/
/ɹ j/
/r/
/l ʟ/


Comments: It looks fine, typologically unusual, but fine. I'd say the two things that stand out to me, which aren't problems but more things that make me curious about their diachronics, are /ɲ ʟ/. /ɲ/ is your only palatal consonant other than /j/, so it just leaves me curious if the other palatals merged with /j/ like in some Romance varieties. As for /ʟ/, it's just an extremely rare phoneme (but one that happens to occur in some varieties of American English).

minimizing the number of sounds from english that people from other language backgrounds have trouble with.

I don't think that's really a meaningful goal without knowing what language these hypothetical speakers speak.

The other question i had is the consonant cluster /t/ + /s/ the same as the phenome /ts/ and if so would it be cheating to include that cluster but not have the phenome in my inventory?

Languages can contrast /t.s/ vs. /t͡s/, yes.

[storyteller232]

For those like me who can analyze consonants inventories better in IPA order

Sorry, i usually put it into vulgarlang and take a screen cap of the IPA chart it generates but i posted it from my phone at work and couldn't.

Comments: It looks fine, typologically unusual, but fine. I'd say the two things that stand out to me, which aren't problems but more things that make me curious about their diachronics, are /ɲ ʟ/. /ɲ/ is your only palatal consonant other than /j/, so it just leaves me curious if the other palatals merged with /j/ like in some Romance varieties. As for /ʟ/, it's just an extremely rare phoneme (but one that happens to occur in some varieties of American English).

Any suggestions of tweaks, or is it good enough that if i like it just go with it. Its just a personal artlang with no associated conworld or conculture and no parent languages so if its not at least a semi-plausable i'll change it, but otherwise im not too worried about explaining it.

I don't think that's really a meaningful goal without knowing what language these hypothetical speakers speak.

So i can answer that easy enough. Yes im likely the only one to ever learm it but the thheory is a family language secret code. I have a diverse family. My sister in law is inuit, from Baffin Island in the Artic. I have a half japanese cousin (my grandparents were missionaries in japan and then in brazil and my dad's family all still speak fluent portuguese), and I have several half chinese cousins. My moms family is 100% ukrainian too, but lets simplify this, only my aunt and cousin still speak any japanese, similar with chinese and my moms fily only know how to say the religious back and forths from the ukrainian orthodox church they grew up in. So i dont really have to worry about them. I have an an aunt and uncle in switzerland. So lets say the speakers' background are english, spanish (latin american), german or french.

Languages can contrast /t.s/ vs. /t͡s/, yes.

Ok good to know thanks

[Zaarin]

Any suggestions of tweaks, or is it good enough that if i like it just go with it. Its just a personal artlang with no associated conworld or conculture and no parent languages so if its not at least a semi-plausable i'll change it, but otherwise im not too worried about explaining it.

Like I said, typologically unusual, but there's nothing wrong with it. It's not implausible at all.

I don't think that's really a meaningful goal without knowing what language these hypothetical speakers speak.

So i can answer that easy enough. Yes im likely the only one to ever learm it but the thheory is a family language secret code. I have a diverse family. My sister in law is inuit, from Baffin Island in the Artic. I have a half japanese cousin (my grandparents were missionaries in japan and then in brazil and my dad's family all still speak fluent portuguese), and I have several half chinese cousins. My moms family is 100% ukrainian too, but lets simplify this, only my aunt and cousin still speak any japanese, similar with chinese and my moms fily only know how to say the religious back and forths from the ukrainian orthodox church they grew up in. So i dont really have to worry about them. I have an an aunt and uncle in switzerland. So lets say the speakers' background are english, spanish (latin american), german or french.

Doing away with English's non-contrastive aspiration and opting for denti-alveolar coronals would probably be helpful, particularly for the Spanish- and French-speakers. Allowing some allophonic tolerance for /ɹ/ being realized as another approximant might also help. Finally, /ʟ/ is just a weird phoneme: I have a very dark /l/ [ɫ] but I still find /ʟ/ with no coronal contact challenging--but you might get there by comparing it with a French or German R.

[storyteller232]

Doing away with English's non-contrastive aspiration and opting for denti-alveolar coronals would probably be helpful, particularly for the Spanish- and French-speakers.

Im pretty new to this so I'm not sure what that is.

Allowing some allophonic tolerance for /ɹ/ being realized as another approximant might also help.

Mostly i have /ɹ/ because i dont like the sound of /r/ at word boundaries. As the inside part of a consonant cluster i dont mind or between vowels, but not on the very end or beginning of a word.

Finally, /ʟ/ is just a weird phoneme: I have a very dark /l/ [ɫ] but I still find /ʟ/ with no coronal contact challenging--but you might get there by comparing it with a French or German R.

I listened to /ʟ/ again and again to ensure its the sound i think it is and trying to figure out how to explain how to say it and what i come up with is two ways to help. Its easier to pronounce, i think, as part of the consonant cluster /xʟ/. Secondly, try making that sound of like trying to get up mucus in your throat, but trying to pronounce the l sound as you do it instead of like an h sound.

I just really like that phoneme and i dont know what the word will mean but i really like the syllable /xʟoɪk/ i think that will be a monosyllable word, maybe meaning no. I'm not sure

[Zaarin]

Doing away with English's non-contrastive aspiration and opting for denti-alveolar coronals would probably be helpful, particularly for the Spanish- and French-speakers.

Im pretty new to this so I'm not sure what that is.

English /p t k/ are aspirated syllable-initially except when preceded by /s/; part of what makes many ESL speakers sound foreign is the lack of this aspiration. Not including such aspiration will make the language easier for non-English speakers. Denti-alveolar is the term used to describe the point of articulation of Romance coronal consonants (/n t d r l/).

EDIT: I should probably add that I may not the best person to ask about making conlangs accessible, though. My personal conlangs are full of ejectives, anterior/posterior coronal contrasts, uvulars, and other non-English sounds, so... :p

[storyteller232]

English /p t k/ are aspirated syllable-initially except when preceded by /s/; part of what makes many ESL speakers sound foreign is the lack of this aspiration. Not including such aspiration will make the language easier for non-English speakers. Denti-alveolar is the term used to describe the point of articulation of Romance coronal consonants (/n t d r l/).

Thanks, though I realized now that the consonant clusters i liked started with those so I am dropping the constraint. I had been planning to use /pj/ /tj/ and /kj/ so i'm not doing the whole "make it easy for those languages" anymore.

[storyteller232]

Yay! I think i'm finally happy. I took a totally different root for my inventory, i just never was happy with what I had gone with prior to this, so I decided to look to my heritage and look that Ukrainian and i went from there. Here is my consonant Inventory. I dropped /p/ and switched out on of their semi-vowels for /w/ and added /ʟ/

Stops: /b t d k g/
Nasals: /m n ŋ/
Affricates: /ts dz tʃ dʒ/
Fricatives: /f s z ʃ ʒ x h/
Aproximants: /j w/
Trill: /r/
Lateral Approximants: /l ʟ/

Vowels: /a aɪ eɪ eʊ i o oɪ u ɔ ɛ ɪ ʊ ʌ/

[bbbosborne]

looks good!

[storyteller232]

looks good!

Glad to hear. I think i can finally concentrate on figuring out cases, syntax etc and then start word building.

[storyteller232]

Ok, so I added back in the glottal stop. but otherwise the last phonology is what i'm going with. YAY Progress! Lol i'm excited to be able to finally move forward with my language. The first question I have is on the writing, and will post a follow up for feedback on what I'm thinking about cases, aspects and tenses. So I decided to stick simply with the Roman alphabet as I have no artistic talent, but would like help with the orthography. Not going to waste my time with listing the obvious ones aka p = /p/ k = /k/ etc.

/ʒ/ = ?
/dʒ/ = j
/tʃ/ = ch
/ʃ/ = sh
/ʟ/ = ll
/x/ = ?
/ʔ/ = '
/ŋ/ = ng
/ts/ = ? am i remembering correctly that the romanization of the /ts/ sound from chineese is often represented as zh?<br/>
/dz/ = ?
/j/ = y
/r/ = r

Vowels:
/i/ = ee
/ɪ/ = i
/u/ = oo
/ɛ/ = e
/ʌ/ = u
/ɔ/ = ou
/o/ = o
/a/ = a
/ʊ/ = ?
/aɪ/ = ie
/eɪ/ = ae
/eʊ/ = ?
/oɪ/ = oi

Are /o/ and /eʊ/very different sounds? I had decided on the vowel sounds a while back and was trying to match the IPA symbols with the sound and my romanization, now what i'm founding seems to be not what i remember. but still...PROGRESS!!

[akam chinjir]

/ʒ/ = ?
/dʒ/ = j
/tʃ/ = ch
/ʃ/ = sh

If you've got <sh> for /ʃ/, then <zh> for /ʒ/ makes sense.

/x/ = ?

<x> isn't terrible; <kh> is also traditional.

/ts/ = ? am i remembering correctly that the romanization of the /ts/ sound from chineese is often represented as zh?<br/>
/dz/ = ?

Pinyin <c> is /tsʰ/ (and <z> is /ts/); <zh> is /ʈʂ/ (and <ch> is /ʈʂʰ/). You could work in <c>, maybe.

Vowels:
/i/ = ee
/ɪ/ = i
/u/ = oo
/ɛ/ = e
/ʌ/ = u
/ɔ/ = ou
/o/ = o
/a/ = a
/ʊ/ = ?

I'd avoid <ee> and <oo> for /i/ and /u/. If you're okay with diacritics, you've got some pairs that can be handled that way: /ɪ/, /ɔ/, and /ʊ/ as -ATR (or laxed, or lowered, or whatever) /i/, /o/, and /u/; for example they could be <î>, <ô>, and <û>. And /ʌ/ is a backed /ɛ/; could be <ë>.

[bbbosborne]

i'd switch <o> and <ou>. personally i think it's a bit more intuitive

Are /o/ and /eʊ/very different sounds?

yes

[storyteller232]

If you've got <sh> for /ʃ/, then <zh> for /ʒ/ makes sense.

zh sounds good

<x> isn't terrible; <kh> is also traditional.

I knew i saw something + h for it somewhere but I couldn't remember which. I'll go with <kh>. i know I would have trouble not confusing /x/ with the /ks/ sound if /x/ was <x>

Pinyin <c> is /tsʰ/ (and <z> is /ts/); <zh> is /ʈʂ/ (and <ch> is /ʈʂʰ/). You could work in <c>, maybe.

What about just sticking with with <ts> for /ts/ and <dz> for /dz/ ?

I'd avoid <ee> and <oo> for /i/ and /u/. If you're okay with diacritics, you've got some pairs that can be handled that way: /ɪ/, /ɔ/, and /ʊ/ as -ATR (or laxed, or lowered, or whatever) /i/, /o/, and /u/; for example they could be <î>, <ô>, and <û>. And /ʌ/ is a backed /ɛ/; could be <ë>.

/o/ = <ô>
/u/ = <û>
i really don't like the look of the letter i with diacritics so would prefer to avoid it.