Zompist Bboard Again

malloc wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2026 10:54 am

/ˌnɐˈɾɛndɚduːd/ wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2026 10:41 am

Man in Space wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2026 9:16 pm RIHGI ‘to lose’ (17-stroke character)

the stroke order seems quite random, is there some specific pattern or set of rules?

My thoughts as well. Although some scripts like hanzi do have required stroke orders, they usually follow general patterns like top to bottom and left to right. It seems quite awkward to jump around from one part of the glyph to another adding one line at a time to each section. Imagine what would happen in rapid cursive writing.

Richard W wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2026 4:36 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2026 3:59 am It depends entirely on the language. I see no problem with having aspirated stops more common than tenuis ones.

I get the feeling that having more aspirated than unaspirated stops by frequency is historically unstable, which doesn't stop languages getting into that position. However, I would expect a slow correction of the distribution. One mechanism, seen in some Southern Thai dialects, is for stops to deaspirate in tones where aspiration has a very low functional load.

The assortment of phonemes in Thai in general is very non-random. The most obvious features are due to the past millennium's sound changes, and I suspect much of the rest goes back to older sound changes and characteristics of donor languages, as in English.

Ahzoh wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2026 5:22 pm

Richard W wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2026 4:36 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2026 3:59 am It depends entirely on the language. I see no problem with having aspirated stops more common than tenuis ones.

I get the feeling that having more aspirated than unaspirated stops by frequency is historically unstable, which doesn't stop languages getting into that position. However, I would expect a slow correction of the distribution. One mechanism, seen in some Southern Thai dialects, is for stops to deaspirate in tones where aspiration has a very low functional load.

The assortment of phonemes in Thai in general is very non-random. The most obvious features are due to the past millennium's sound changes, and I suspect much of the rest goes back to older sound changes and characteristics of donor languages, as in English.

So this phoneme distribution unstable?
[high] n r m s kʰ tʰ l t k ɬ x t͡sʰ p j ʔ t͡ɬʰ w t͡s ħ h pʰ t͡ɬ ŋ f [low]

It is what I simulate might be the frequency of consonants in lexical roots if voiced stops merge with ejectives to become tenuis while the old tenuis/plain become/stay aspirated

Ahzoh wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2026 5:22 pm So this phoneme distribution unstable?
[high] n r m s kʰ tʰ l t k ɬ x t͡sʰ p j ʔ t͡ɬʰ w t͡s ħ h pʰ t͡ɬ ŋ f [low]

It is what I simulate might be the frequency of consonants in lexical roots if voiced stops merge with ejectives to become tenuis while the old tenuis/plain become/stay aspirated

Ahzoh wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2026 5:22 pm

Richard W wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2026 4:36 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2026 3:59 am It depends entirely on the language. I see no problem with having aspirated stops more common than tenuis ones.

I get the feeling that having more aspirated than unaspirated stops by frequency is historically unstable, which doesn't stop languages getting into that position. However, I would expect a slow correction of the distribution. One mechanism, seen in some Southern Thai dialects, is for stops to deaspirate in tones where aspiration has a very low functional load.

The assortment of phonemes in Thai in general is very non-random. The most obvious features are due to the past millennium's sound changes, and I suspect much of the rest goes back to older sound changes and characteristics of donor languages, as in English.

So this phoneme distribution unstable?
[high] n r m s kʰ tʰ l t k ɬ x t͡sʰ p j ʔ t͡ɬʰ w t͡s ħ h pʰ t͡ɬ ŋ f [low]

It is what I simulate might be the frequency of consonants in lexical roots if voiced stops merge with ejectives to become tenuis while the old tenuis/plain become/stay aspirated

malloc wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2026 6:40 pm Another persistent problem with my minimalist project has been whether the tiny phonology and strict phonotactics can even allow enough roots for the language to work. It really depends on how many roots the language really needs and how fastidiously it keeps roots phonologically distinct. Over the years, I have seen many estimates ranging from the hundred and twenty of Toki Pona to the thousands of characters in Chinese each representing one morpheme.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2026 1:43 pm Seemingly 'unnatural' inventories resulting from a language's history may survive long periods in spite of any purported instability.

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2026 9:25 pm Does your conlang have a word that is, approximately, /ni/? If so, what does it mean?

I want your examples of /ni/!

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2026 9:25 pm Does your conlang have a word that is, approximately, /ni/? If so, what does it mean?

I want your examples of /ni/!

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2026 9:25 pm Does your conlang have a word that is, approximately, /ni/? If so, what does it mean?

I want your examples of /ni/!

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2026 9:25 pm Does your conlang have a word that is, approximately, /ni/? If so, what does it mean?

/ˌnɐˈɾɛndɚduːd/ wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2026 6:48 pmthe answer to your question lies in what you aim to achieve with your conlang. Toki Pona, for example, was designed to be so minimalistic that thinking outside the box is a prerequisite to speaking it.

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2026 9:25 pm Does your conlang have a word that is, approximately, /ni/? If so, what does it mean?

I want your examples of /ni/!

malloc wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 10:36 amMeanwhile there is no systematic way of deriving words for animals so you need either numerous roots or many opaque compounds (as the thread on naming animals suggests).