unk

[Moose-tache]

Is this supposed to be a regular, productive process? From a personal aesthetic point of view, I like striking grammatical exoticisms more when they are relics. Creating irregular plurals and non-productive adverbs using reduplication would give Kala a sense of history and charm. But of course that's just a preference. Either way it looks like you're on the right track. Just don't make it too regular!

[tlacamazatl]

x

[Vardelm]

I like it. The "uncountable" and "informal/juvenile" uses are a nice addition to the "scattering", and I dig the sound changes. Nice touch.

kyo’a – be quiet >> konko’a – rain all around (“It’s raining all over.”)

Think you meant to translate that as "quiet all around".

[tlacamazatl]

x

[tlacamazatl]

x

[Vardelm]

A sample sentence or 2 showing the difference would be useful. That said, I have a mixed reaction. It works in general, and I can see you're going for no digraphs. If you plan on only sharing the language with people who know a bit of linguistics and you like how it looks, you're all set. If Joe Public is going to see it, I wouldn't go this route, personally. Comments:

<b d g> : I don't see much reason to go this way. I understand that /ᵐp ⁿt ᵑk/ might often be voiced, but the average person will get it better if the nasals are included.

<q x> : These are interesting twists, which I assume are just aesthetic. Go for it.

<ñ> : I use this as well for nasals that are palatal & back. Either way works well.

<c> : This works with explanation. <ts> is best IMO, but <ch> works as well, although that would need a comment as well.

<ɬ> : I don't see any great way to go, but I generally like <tl> or <cl>.

<w> : A good change. In the latest phonology I posted, /w/ technically alternates between <w u>, so I can see where you might go either way.


Personally, I think reducing the number of digraphs is not a bad idea, but I would avoid getting rid of them just for the sake of it. Perhaps go with the new scheme except for the prenasalized consonants?

Ultimately, it's how you want the language to "look" when presented to others (obviously). I think this is a big consideration since most people will get an impression of a conlang based much more on its romanization than the actual sounds it uses. I place a big emphasis on this, so my phonologies have actually changed a bit to allow what I think is a more pleasant romanization. It also impacts the frequency of phonemes.

Keep chuggin'!

[Ares Land]

I'm not too fond of ɬ for /tɬ/. It's a little confusing.

b d g for / ᵐp ⁿt k ᵑk/ would work, depending on allophony and other factors. I'd suggest mb, nd, ng word initially, b d g elsewhere.

I'm not sure using x before front vowel would work, that is, I'm not sure it suggests correct pronunciation more than h does.

[Moose-tache]

Gonna be honest, unless there's some historical reasoning to it, I don't like the new version.

Here's what happens to me about a hundred times a day:
"Oh, I'm switching to Romanian. The Cs are /tS/ now before front vowels and /k/ otherwise... Whoops, back to Polish, Cs are affricates in all positions... OK, reading some Latin on Wiktionary, gotta turn those Cs back into /k/..."
And on and on it goes. Even if an orthography is clear, I have to "switch" my reading perception with each language. When I read, I tend to read quickly using intuition, so this kind of switching really slows me down.

Your original orthography was extremely intuitive; there was virtually no switching necessary from other languages. It's immediately obvious what <nt> means, and what <ts> means, etc. Even if <d> and <c> are internally consistent, I'm going to have to take off my "Korean hat" or my "Latvian hat" or whatever, put on my "Kala hat," then take it off a few seconds later.

[bradrn]

Been toying with the idea of an alternative romanization.

Current:

/p ᵐp t ⁿt k ᵑk m n ɲ s ɦ ts~t͡ʃ t͡ɬ w l j/

<p mp t nt k nk m n ny s h ts tl u l y>

Idea:

<p b t d k(q) g m n ñ s h(x) c ɬ w l y>

<q> word finally
<x> before front vowels

I agree with everyone else here: I like the old version best (with the exception of ⟨u⟩ /w/). If you really want to avoid digraphs, I’d go with this slight variant of your proposal:

/p ᵐp t ⁿt k ᵑk m n ɲ s ɦ ts~t͡ʃ t͡ɬ w l j/
⟨p b t d k g m n ɲ s h c q w l y⟩

And let me dredge up some old Kala phrases (from your website, which conveniently has phonetic transcriptions) for a comparison:

/jaː koˈɦʷɛːᵑke ˈnoːkoː || jaː ˈkʷaːma ˈʃiːɦʲan ˈnaːt͡sʷa || ja kiːn ˈoːɲo | ja kʷaːn ˈt͡ɬoːpa | ja ˈsaːton ˈɛːla/

Old: Ya kohuenke noko. Ya kuama sihyan natsua. Ya kin onyo, ya kuan tlopa, ya saton ela.

Your proposal: Ya kohwege noko. Ya kwama sixyan nacwa. Ya kin oño, ya kwan ɬopa, ya saton ela.

My proposal: Ya kohwege noko. Ya kwama sihyan nacwa. Ya kin oɲo, ya kwan qopa, ya saton ela.

[Vardelm]

Your original orthography was extremely intuitive; there was virtually no switching necessary from other languages. It's immediately obvious what <nt> means, and what <ts> means, etc. Even if <d> and <c> are internally consistent, I'm going to have to take off my "Korean hat" or my "Latvian hat" or whatever, put on my "Kala hat," then take it off a few seconds later.

I agree.

/jaː koˈɦʷɛːᵑke ˈnoːkoː || jaː ˈkʷaːma ˈʃiːɦʲan ˈnaːt͡sʷa || ja kiːn ˈoːɲo | ja kʷaːn ˈt͡ɬoːpa | ja ˈsaːton ˈɛːla/

Old: Ya kohuenke noko. Ya kuama sihyan natsua. Ya kin onyo, ya kuan tlopa, ya saton ela.

Your proposal: Ya kohwege noko. Ya kwama sixyan nacwa. Ya kin oño, ya kwan ɬopa, ya saton ela.

My proposal: Ya kohwege noko. Ya kwama sihyan nacwa. Ya kin oɲo, ya kwan qopa, ya saton ela.

Seeing this is helpful. Generally, I like the original romanization.

I like <u> → <w> quite a bit. If it were me, I'd definitely go with that.

I like <ny> → <ñ> or <ɲ>. Either works, but I'd prefer <ñ>.

<ɬ> is OK, but I'd stick with <tl>.

The rest I'd leave alone.

Final answer.

[tlacamazatl]

x

[tlacamazatl]

x

[tlacamazatl]

x

[Man in Space]

My question is; Do I include all the script information and lexicon, or should I have separate documents for those? If I include everything I may very well have a short book, but keeping things separate will create at least three manageable documents.

Thoughts? Thank you in advance.

Go with the three documents. GDocs are, IME, incredibly laggy once they start to get to appreciable length.

[bradrn]

Yesterday I had a difficulties logging in to Frathwiki. I contacted Muke and he explained that there are server issues that need to be corrected and that I wasn't the only one who had alerted him to the issue.

In light of this, and generally wanting to always, always, always, have a back-up, I'm transferring the "formal" Kala grammar to a google document that I will publish whenever I actually get it to a presentable state. My question is; Do I include all the script information and lexicon, or should I have separate documents for those? If I include everything I may very well have a short book, but keeping things separate will create at least three manageable documents.

Thoughts? Thank you in advance.

I’d say you should include the script information, but keep the dictionary as a separate document. (Also, I agree with Man in Space — write them in LaTeX or HTML or compile them to PDF somehow else, but please don’t distribute them as Google Docs!)

[tlacamazatl]

x

[Moose-tache]

Excited to see the revised Kala.

[tlacamazatl]

x

[tlacamazatl]

x

[Vardelm]

I have reached the 1/4 mark of my goal of the revamped Omyatloko script...I have 250 glyphs defined and annotated.

just a sample: https://i.imgur.com/ItEzNuP.png

You, sir, are a masochist, and I applaud you for it.