What is your favorite sounding language (read more)?

[mōdgethanc]

I have a proto-language from which I could easily derive my inventory.
Are you asking me why or HOW?
If it is "why", then the answer is why do I need to have a reason? I think why is a pointless question.

You don't have to do anything. However, you asked for feedback, and I gave you some. I asked you to show your work. If you can do easily, why not?

Probably V:C -> VəC -> VɦC -> VhC -> VʰC (This is far more likely if the C is unvoiced). In any case, go ask Icelandic and Faroese, considering they are some of the only natlangs to have them.

They have preaspirated stops and voiceless nasals. I've never heard of a preaspirated nasal. On the other hand, these sounds tend to come from clusters like /hn/.

Also the tilde (~) symbolizes free variation.

I know what it means.

The uvular nasal could come out of a change in the lines of nasalized vowel + plosive -> vowel + nasal (Ṽq → Vɴ). Japanese has it, along with alveolar nasal and bilabial nasal...

Japanese, the only language I know of with those three nasals, got it from older /m/ in the syllable coda.

Why not? I mean it's not like Semitic languages don't have at face value randomly pharyngealized consonants.

I can point out the historical changes that led to them, though. (They came from older ejectives.) I'm asking you where they came from in your language

Many languages only have /ts/, like Hebrew...

Some do. It's still a gap in the inventory.

Though the uvular trill belonged once upon a time to the uvularized consonants group. The labialized trill is only analyzed as such phonetically, phonemically it is ordinary /r/. I recall English <r> being pharyngealized and labialized...

English is hardly the model you should look to for a typical language.

There are a few/many languages with such an inventory...

Name six.

The conditioning factor IS that they happen after front vowels, word-finally...

Why would front vowels cause that, though, and why only in the dental stops? Front vowels tend to cause palatalization, not fricatization.

l) Well considering it is under the "Allophony" section, I would say yes...

You said "they are analyzed as..." which to me implied they're phonemic. My bad.

You don't need to have a rationale behind your consonant clusters. I even asked this question to other conlangers...

No, but I'm asking you for one now, namely "why do you allow mixed voicing when that tends to be unstable".

I was told by several experienced conlangers that my phonology is beautiful and perfectly plausible...

Well, they're wrong. It's plausible, yeah, but not very likely. If you want weird, then by all means do so. I like natural languages, so I'm biased.

Also, rare does not mean unusable.

I never said it did. In fact, I went out of my way to say that just because what you have is unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible.

I'm hardly breaking these so called "near-universals"

Despite your use of scare quotes, languages do in fact have many universal or near-universal traits.

As for your repeated question of "why not", I already gave you my reasons why: I pointed out several times where this is uncommon, this is unlikely, etc. using the basic principles of historical linguistics and sound change.

why random velarised sounds in languages with those? There's no apparent reason other than "just because"

In fact, there is a reason for most sound changes.

no rule states one needs /dz/ if there exists /ts/: Japanese for example phonemically only has /ts/

And Polish has both. So what?

Bilabial fricatives may be rare, but why should that stop one from using them?

I never said one shouldn't. I asked why these rare sounds instead of these common ones. I think that's a reasonable question to ask.

Japonese phonemically has /ɸ/

From Western loans with /f/. Otherwise, it's a allophone of /h/.

Cross-linguistically, /T/ /D/ and /G/ are rare yet they seem to be praised among conlangers . Why so phonemist?

I don't know, I'm not a conlanger. Why don't you ask them?

[Ahzoh]

Actually my original question was towards Koko about what I meant as how it sounded...

Well someone a while ago worked out the sound changes, but this was before some changes occurred to the phonemic table, but I don't see how they can't arise the same way:
As for Ahzoh's proto-lang troubles, I haven't given it too much thought, but:

Original Vrkhazhian Phonology:
Vowel: /a ɛ e ɨ i ɔ o ə u/
Nasal: /m n n̥ ɴ/
Plosive: /p ʰp pʶ~pˤ b bʶ~bˤ t ʰt tʶ~tˤ d dʶ~dˤ k ʰk g q ʰq ʔ/
Allophonic Plosive: /t d/ become [ʈ ɖ] before /w/
Affricate: /ʦ ʧ~ʨ ʤ~ʥ/
Fricative: /ɸ β s sʶ~sˤ z zʶ~zˤ ʃ~ɕ ʒ~ʑ x ɣ χ~ħ/
Allophonic Fricative: /t d/ become [θ ð] before front vowels, word-finally.
Approximant: /j w/
Trill: /r ʀ/
Liquid: /ɹ~ɾ ɹ̥ l l̥ lʶ~lˤ/
Lateral Fricative: /ɬ/
Syllabic Consonants: /n̩ ɹ̩/

Proto-Lang
/i i: u u: ə e e: o o: a a:/
/m n/
/p b t d tʲ dʲ k g kʲ gʲ q ʔ/
/f s sʲ x xʲ h/
/w r l j/
/ɬ/
/n̩ ɹ̩/

Phonemic low tone vs. high tone on accented syllables.

1a) Low tone > creaky voice > uvularized/pharyngealised preceding consonant
1b) /tʲ dʲ sʲ kʲ gʲ xʲ/ > /ts dz ʃ tɕ dʑ ɕ/

2a.i) /i: u: e: o: a:/ > /i: u: e: o: a:/
2a.iii) /i u ə e o a/ > /i u ɨ ɛ ɔ ɐ/ > /i u ɨ e o ə/ in closed syllables
2a.iv) /i u ə e o a/ > /i u i e o a/ in open syllables
2b) Loss of unstressed /ə/ in open syllables

3a.i) /mp nt nts ntɕ nk nq nʔ/ > /bb dd ddz ddʑ gg/
3a.ii) /mb nd ndz ndʑ ng/ > /mm nn nn ɲɲ ŋŋ ɴɴ nn/

4a) Intervocalic jazz hands
4a.i) /p: t: ts: tɕ: k: q: ʔ:/ > /ʰp ʰt s: ɕ: ʰk ʰq ʔ/ > /ʰp ʰt s ɕ ʰk ʰq ʔ/
4a.ii) /p t ts tɕ k q ʔ/ > /p t ts tɕ k q ʔ/
4b.i) /b: d: dz: dʑ: g:/ > /b d dz dʑ g/ > /b d z ʑ g/
4b.ii) /b d dz dʑ g/ > /β ð z ʑ ɣ/ > /β z~r z ʑ ɣ/
4c.i) /m: n: ɲɲ ŋŋ ɴɴ/ > /m n ɲ ŋ ɴ/ > /m n j ɴ ɴ/
4c.ii) /m n/ > /m̥ n̥/ > /ʍ n̥/ > /ɸ n̥/
4d.i) /f: s: ʃ: x: ɕ: h:/ > /f s ʃ x ɕ h/ > /ɸ s ʃ x ɕ ħ/
4d.ii) /f s ʃ x ɕ h/ > /h h h h h h/ > /ħ/
4e.i) /w: r: l: j:/ > /β r l ʑ/
4e.ii) /w r l j/ > /w r̥ l̥ j/
4f.i) /ɬ:/ > /ɬ/
4f.ii) /ɬ/ > /l/

5a.i) /i: u: e: o: a:/ > /ej ow əj əw a/ in open syllables > /ej ow aj aw a/
5a.ii) /i: u: e: o: a:/ > /i u e o a/ in closed syllables

I'm not how sure that ties in with your morphology at all, and I'm not sure which direction to take pharyngealised alveolo-palatals, etc. but I think it could reasonably lead to the relatively large inventory of Vrkhazhian without having to rely on a large inventory in the proto-lang as well. It also means, for example, that you can get some pretty good correspondences between Vrkhazhian and related languages, e.g. /'dànəpi/ > ['dˤabej] vs. ['dànatɕ] (palatalisation of [p] along Tsakonian lines) or /ə'mí:qa/ > ['ɸéjqa] vs. [ã'dʑeʔ] (palatalisation again, following Latin simius > French singe, nasalisation of vowels in closed syllables before nasal consonants and shift of [q] > [ʔ])
There was also an unmentioned fact that there are nasalized vowels.

Well, they're wrong.

This is a rather childish way of saying "I think I know better".

It's plausible, yeah, but not very likely. If you want weird, then by all means do so. I like natural languages, so I'm biased.

I want naturalism and plausibility. I see nothing wrong with my phonology that defies my end goals.

I never said it did. In fact, I went out of my way to say that just because what you have is unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible.

Clearly you do have a problem with rare phonemes because if you didn't you wouldn't be complaining about the fact I have a palatal lateral fricative.
I mean why does it bloody matter if I have a lot of uncommon or rare features? You are making it out to be a bad thing!

Though the uvular trill belonged once upon a time to the uvularized consonants group. The labialized trill is only analyzed as such phonetically, phonemically it is ordinary /r/. I recall English <r> being pharyngealized and labialized...

English is hardly the model you should look to for a typical language.

My mentioning it was solely to show that such a thing can exist.

You don't need to have a rationale behind your consonant clusters. I even asked this question to other conlangers...

No, but I'm asking you for one now, namely "why do you allow mixed voicing when that tends to be unstable".

Because I can. Also, this: http://aveneca.com/cbb/viewtopic.php?f= ... 80#p164691

There are a few/many languages with such an inventory...

Name six.

I can only find one: http://aveneca.com/cbb/viewtopic.php?f= ... el#p164642

But Vrkhazhian also has /c͡ç ɟ͡ʝ/. Having a voicing contrast between two very rare consonants and lacking the contrast between more common counterparts seems unusual to me.

There is one possible way to explain this and that's that /c͡ç ɟ͡ʝ/ were previously just /c ɟ/ (IIRC, there's a debate regarding Hungarian along these lines, about whether /c ɟ/ are actually plosives or affricates) and that /ts dz/ were affricates before that shift occurred. If you posit a rule stating that voiced affricates merged into voiced fricatives (doesn't seem like too an unlikely change) before the affrication of /c ɟ/, then you can explain away the gap. You could go one step further, however, and suggest the presence of a dialectal merger of /ɟ͡ʝ/ with /ʝ/ amongst younger speakers of one dialect or another, indicating a recent shift towards "balancing out" the system.

This could also explain question F and E.

n) why clusters of stops that differ in voicing (unlikely)

These occur in Arabic(?) as the result of conjugation, e.g. katabtu (I wrote (is that the best translation?)), so it's not implausible, although I don't know under what conditions they occur in Vrkhazhian.

i) why a contrast between mid and open-mid vowels (rare) but not close-mid and open-mid (common)

Looking at Vrkhzhian, you've got basically the vowel system of (Standard Eastern) Catalan, although it has mid-close vowels as opposed to mid vowels and your schwa is phonemic in stressed syllables where as it appears only in unstressed syllables in Catalan, but other than that, it's fine.

c) why a uvular nasal phoneme (rare) but no velar nasal (common)

This could be the result of a merger between older /ɴ/ and /ŋ/ where [ɴ] became the most common realisation. I'd still expect [ŋ] to turn up as well though, possible when adjacent to velars and front vowels.

On the other hand, /ŋ/ could have been the original sound and it simply appears more often as [ɴ] allophonically. At that point it's still just a question of analysis, to my mind.

d) why random uvularized sounds

You could suggest, again diachronically, that the distribution of uvularisation isn't random. Originally it only affected voiceless plosives, rhotics and laterals. /kʶ/ shifted to /q/ while /rʶ/ shifted to /ʀ/. You could possibly derive /ʰq/ through something like /kkʶ/, depending on how pre-aspiration arose.

g) why four rhotics with one random labialized consonant and a uvular trill (rare)

The presence of /ʀ/ was kind of explained above.

You could explain the /ɹ~ɾ/ vs. /rʷ/ as an older /r/ vs. /r:/ distinction, with the short version becoming an approximant and the long version becoming a trill, and we already, IIRC, discussed the labialisation of the trill in another thread as a secondary phonetic feature, like the labialisation the English rhotic for some/many(?) native speakers.

j) why /ae/ and /ao/ but not /ai/ and /au/, or /ei/, /ou/, /eu/, /oi/ etc.

Basically the same as having just /ai au/ which isn't too uncommon, but the tongue isn't raised as far up during production of the diphthong. Again, you might expect [ai au] to occur in certain environments, but if [ae ao] are the most common realisations and found in isolation, then I don't see much of a problem.

k) why do /t, d/ get lenited after front vowels (no conditioning factor)

This one, I think, was discussed in another thread and I think we came to some consensus. I'd have to find it again, though, but it was fairly well thought out in the end.

m) why bilabial fricatives (rare) and not labiodental (common)

They might be rarer, but it doesn't really matter all that much at the end of the day. At least you didn't contrast the two pairs which, as far as I'm aware, occurs basically on in Ewe.

[Mentilliath]

^Can you even properly pronounce all these sounds? Not trying to insult your inventory, I think it's very interesting, but I don't think I personally would be able to pronounce it properly.

[Ahzoh]

^Can you even properly pronounce all these sounds? Not trying to insult your inventory, I think it's very interesting, but I don't think I personally would be able to pronounce it properly.

Easily. I can easily pronounce all of these.

[Mentilliath]

You know, even Proto Indo-European breaks many universals, by having only mid-vowels, voiced aspirates with no unvoiced counterparts...not many CV syllables...it's quite unusual as far as its phonology goes and yet it's the ancestor of the most widely spoken languages of the world.

Just throwing that out there.

[mōdgethanc]

There's so little we know about PIE that it's stupid to make claims about it as if they were the gospel. We don't even know for sure what kind of stops it had.

As for Ahzoh's proto-lang troubles, I haven't given it too much thought, but:

You forgot the kitchen sink. That's a joke.

This is a rather childish way of saying "I think I know better".

Apparently, I do know better. Anyone who's taken an introductory course in linguistics should know the basic rules of sound laws, which changes are common and which are not.

I want naturalism and plausibility. I see nothing wrong with my phonology that defies my end goals.

I pointed out what I see as a bunch of unrealistic stuff. I really don't care if you agree with me; I don't care about your conlang, or conlangs in general, either. I just thought they ought to be brought to your attention.

Clearly you do have a problem with rare phonemes because if you didn't you wouldn't be complaining about the fact I have a palatal lateral fricative.

Offering criticism is not complaining. You need to learn that.

I mean why does it bloody matter if I have a lot of uncommon or rare features? You are making it out to be a bad thing!

No I'm not. For the billionth time, I said that if you want weird and wacky, you don't need a reason. I don't find what you've created here to be very realistic, but if that's what you want, I don't care. I have no emotional investment in this, but from your reaction, you'd think I said you have an ugly baby.

You could suggest, again diachronically, that the distribution of uvularisation isn't random. Originally it only affected voiceless plosives, rhotics and laterals. /kʶ/ shifted to /q/ while /rʶ/ shifted to /ʀ/. You could possibly derive /ʰq/ through something like /kkʶ/, depending on how pre-aspiration arose.

Where did uvularization come from in the first place, though? Note: You do not have to have a plausible explanation other than "I wanted to have it". I'm just wondering if you do.

One more thing, though:

t d/ become [ʈ ɖ] before /w/

Why would that happen?

[Ahzoh]

All I can say is ANADEW...

Also I don't have allophonic retroflexes in the new phonology...

[mōdgethanc]

Just out of curiosity, can you name six natlangs with uvularized stops? Really?

[Ahzoh]

Just out of curiosity, can you name six natlangs with uvularized stops? Really?

I can only name one, and it is a dialect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ju%C7%80'hoan_dialect
Also it is speculated that Arabic emphatic consonants vary from velarized, uvularized and pharyngealized.

[Mentilliath]

from your reaction, you'd think I said you have an ugly baby.

Well to us conlangers, our languages are sort of like our babies

I know I'm not helping...

[Koko]

Well to us conlangers, our languages are sort of like our babies

I know I'm not helping...

I would be forever broken if someone insulted Isyan . I mean, I know it's not perfect, but it's only okay if i'm the one trashing it.

[mōdgethanc]

Alright, perhaps I was too harsh with you. But I stand by what I said; I doubt all those features, while they exist in various languages, would all exist in the same natural language.

[Ahzoh]

Even if I have plausible sound changes leading up to such?

[mōdgethanc]

Even if I have plausible sound changes leading up to such?

Well, the thing is that many sounds are diachronically unstable. Bilabial fricatives, for example, often develop from bilabial stops, but shift to labiodental shortly after. Palatal stops often come from velars in front of (or after) front vowels, but shift to postalveolars. Interdentals tend to become either stops or sibilants, and so on. So you can have as many plausible changes as you like, but historically, some sounds tend to not last very long before turning into a more stable phoneme.

As for all that uvular shit, I don't know any languages that have done it, but it's plausible that uvular consonants could turn into uvularized sounds in certain cases. Look at Caucasian languages - in some of them nearly all their phonemic vowels disappeared but left traces in the form of secondary articulations like palatalization and labialization.

[Ahzoh]

Well, I ought not mention that this language's oldest form is 5000 years old... but then the palatals and bilabials could be more recent developments.
There is also another dialect, that has nasal fricatives and postalveolars and lacks pre-aspiration/voiceless nasals. Maybe also retroflexes...

My sound changes from the proto-language mentions low tone turning into creaky voice which turn in to uvularization/pharyngealization

[Iparxi_Zoi]

Well, whatever a person's choice for phonology it's their choice. So what if it's sounds too unlikely to occur naturally? The point of conlangs is to do what we wish. I have a future conlang filled with voiced stops and fricatives like /ð/, /ʒ/, and /ɣ/ situated in the South Pacific, where most languages don't even have a voiceless/voiced distinction.

It all depends on whether you want your conlang to be "realistic" or not.

[Ahzoh]

It all depends on whether you want your conlang to be "realistic" or not.

That's the thing, I want naturalistic and plausible...

[yasmin-kasumi]

I personally really like American English. That might sound biased (being a speaker of American English) but I grew tired of the fascination with the foreign. British English is said to flow better whereas American English is too choppy, nasaly, and central. In my opinion, the more nasaly, the choppier, and the central-er the vowels, the better! Common sounds are...common, but I it's also extremely common for a language to have some rarer sounds, and the rarer sounds of English mystify me, all those schwas!

[Iparxi_Zoi]

I personally really like American English. That might sound biased (being a speaker of American English) but I grew tired of the fascination with the foreign. British English is said to flow better whereas American English is too choppy, nasaly, and central. In my opinion, the more nasaly, the choppier, and the central-er the vowels, the better! Common sounds are...common, but I it's also extremely common for a language to have some rarer sounds, and the rarer sounds of English mystify me, all those schwas!

British English is more flowing? To me all dialects of English sound choppy.

[Koko]

Have you heard Canadian English Iparxi? Personally, it's one of the smoother dialects (trying not to be biased; I'm listening to Americans right now and I've heard enough British and Australian English). It has its moments, but overall it is more "flowing."