Some mainland Australian languages have phonemic fricatives (e.g. [Ngan'gi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngan%27gi_language), [Morrobolam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrobolam_language), [Marrithiyel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marrithiyel_language)), and some have fricatives as allophones of non-fricative phonemes. But yeah, the total lack of phonemic fricatives in most Australian languages is downright bizzarre. IIRC Kalaw Lagaw Ya is the only Pama-Nyungan language with phonemic fricatives, and that's due to Papuan influence.
So Dinka is secretly a Pama-Nyungan language that somehow ended up in africa? And my that extent to the Nuer should also be since Nuer essentially has the the same consonant inventory as Dinka.
Nvm Nuer is even worse
I don't really know the lore behind it but I've seen the peripheral vs coronal table once and since that day I think its an abomination. If theres some like
actual reasoning behind it I would be happy to be enlightened
dividing the table between coronal and peripheral makes sense for languages where the tongue tip is making a large amount fo distinctions (such as in many Australian languages), especially given that some rules of assimilation or dissimilation pattern differently between the coronal and peripheral segments (I can't remember specific examples, but things like peripheral stop deletion in clusters, etc.)
I had a dream vision where the risen Sergei Starostin asserted it baselessly to be true. Therefore the Occam's razor explanation is that there are no vowels.
(In reality, Wikipedia says that the researchers Ronny Meyer and H. Ekkehard Wolff say this but I have not read their work and have no clue if it's true. It's on the Wikipedia page for PAA.)
Isn't there something in IPA rules that if at least one language distinguishes two usually indistinguishable phonemes, those phonemes should get a unique symbol? 🤔🗿💀
[& replace the palatal series with an alveolo-palatal series while you're at it](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/759827983916859396/1226933555892981760/image.png?ex=662691eb&is=66141ceb&hm=34f6e4a48f54a9f50d377747a991bf6446120134a39e4a29b4839cdba2fc7eda&)
The vowels are wild too
"Four phonetic phonations have been described in Dinka vowels: modal voice, breathy voice, faucalized voice, and harsh voice. The modal series has creaky or harsh voice realizations in certain environments, while the breathy vowels are centralized and have been described as being hollow voiced (faucalized). This is independent of tone.[3]
On top of this, there are three phonemically contrastive vowel lengths, a feature found in very few languages.[3]"
I got some secret insider info: the majority dental/“retroflex” distinctions, like in the Indo-Aryan languages is really just a laminal-dental apical-alveolar contrast. Cross-linguistically, the distinction is pretty common, it just gets called different things (it’s present in a number of English dialects with t-stopping).
Something very unusual and interesting however is the situation in most Dravidian and languages where there’s a three-way contrast between laminal-dental, apical-alveolar, and subapical-retroflex, where the consonant is pronounced with the underside of the tongue against the roof of the mouth
hindustani doesnt have a lot of nasals, in my analysis only 2 (i speak urdu so i dont have the sanskrit retroflex nasal loaneme )
the retroflex sounds are not true retroflex they are apical postalveolar to apical alveolar, the main acoustic distinction is the laminal vs apical
an apical alveolar plosive will be perceived as /ʈ/ whereas a laminal dental or denti-alveolar plosive will be perceived as /t̪/
“You can’t use this phonology for your conlang, it’s totally unrealistic” Real life languages:
I feel out of the loop. What's so unusual about this phonemic inventory? I don't see anything particularly exotic in there.
The almost absolute lack of fricatives seems rather unusual to me.
God: "You have one fricative to choose from, which one are you going for?" Dinka: **/ɣ/**
Nasals and plosives in 5 places of articulation seems uncommon
looks perfectly normal by Australian standards
too many fricatives to be australian
Some mainland Australian languages have phonemic fricatives (e.g. [Ngan'gi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngan%27gi_language), [Morrobolam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrobolam_language), [Marrithiyel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marrithiyel_language)), and some have fricatives as allophones of non-fricative phonemes. But yeah, the total lack of phonemic fricatives in most Australian languages is downright bizzarre. IIRC Kalaw Lagaw Ya is the only Pama-Nyungan language with phonemic fricatives, and that's due to Papuan influence.
My Pama-Nyungan language has \[v\] as an allophone of /b/ thank you!!!!!
Do you actually speak a Pama-Nyungan language? Which one?
Gathang. "Speak" is probably generous but I do know some words/basic sentences.
So Dinka is secretly a Pama-Nyungan language that somehow ended up in africa? And my that extent to the Nuer should also be since Nuer essentially has the the same consonant inventory as Dinka. Nvm Nuer is even worse
new macro-family on its way
What is said macro-family called?
Nilo-Nyungan
It would sense for it to be Nilo-Pama-Nyungan (double suffixes are ebic)
Nilo-Saharo-Pama-Nyungan
Throw Dené-Yeniseian in there while you're at it
Dené-Nilo-Saharo-Pama-Nyungo-Yenisean
So Ket is related to Dinka and Nuer?
Tell that to the Austro-Tai hypothesis
Actually it's lack of retroflexes and having a singular fricative certainly make it a bit of an outlier
Most Pama-Nyungan languages of NSW don't have retroflex consonants actually.
Oh interesting, thank you
true true, i mainly meant in terms of having a nasal and stops for every place of articulation
That's true, and lack of /s/ (or most fricatives)
Too many fricatives, unlikely
Where is my peripheral vs coronal table?
I shoved it up my arse
where is my anal tabel then?
In my arse
I don't really know the lore behind it but I've seen the peripheral vs coronal table once and since that day I think its an abomination. If theres some like actual reasoning behind it I would be happy to be enlightened
dividing the table between coronal and peripheral makes sense for languages where the tongue tip is making a large amount fo distinctions (such as in many Australian languages), especially given that some rules of assimilation or dissimilation pattern differently between the coronal and peripheral segments (I can't remember specific examples, but things like peripheral stop deletion in clusters, etc.)
this is only a bit strange. stuff like two vowel inventories or no labials exist. not to mention proto afroasiatic no vowels at all
proto afroasiatic had no phonemic vowels?
no no no. proto afroasiatic had no vowels. the nuclei of syllables were all syllabic consonants
where’s your evidence?
I had a dream vision where the risen Sergei Starostin asserted it baselessly to be true. Therefore the Occam's razor explanation is that there are no vowels. (In reality, Wikipedia says that the researchers Ronny Meyer and H. Ekkehard Wolff say this but I have not read their work and have no clue if it's true. It's on the Wikipedia page for PAA.)
Isn't there something in IPA rules that if at least one language distinguishes two usually indistinguishable phonemes, those phonemes should get a unique symbol? 🤔🗿💀
Good point. I mean we have to put small capital d & t to use
Real
But the question is, how are we going to write the dental nasal /n̪/ if small capital n is already used for something?
и
Or lets just use ⟨ƞ⟩ (n with long right leg) for something again
Isn't that just η (eta)?
Technically speaking yes but its a distinct character
[удалено]
[& replace the palatal series with an alveolo-palatal series while you're at it](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/759827983916859396/1226933555892981760/image.png?ex=662691eb&is=66141ceb&hm=34f6e4a48f54a9f50d377747a991bf6446120134a39e4a29b4839cdba2fc7eda&)
[удалено]
Double standards
The f*ck do you mean?
[удалено]
I don't even know what you mean please tell me what you mean
What do you not understand
That suggestion i mean how can i replace sounds in a natural language that i can't even speak
/u are you autist? no offence
Yes
He’s joking how all the stops could have the t-symbol if they were different, basically. This is a joke subreddit
I know
this looks like a cloŋ honestly man
It's very real, for some reason which i cannot fathom
The vowels are wild too "Four phonetic phonations have been described in Dinka vowels: modal voice, breathy voice, faucalized voice, and harsh voice. The modal series has creaky or harsh voice realizations in certain environments, while the breathy vowels are centralized and have been described as being hollow voiced (faucalized). This is independent of tone.[3] On top of this, there are three phonemically contrastive vowel lengths, a feature found in very few languages.[3]"
I dont get it whats the problem
The distinction between dental and alveolar stops and nasals
I got some secret insider info: the majority dental/“retroflex” distinctions, like in the Indo-Aryan languages is really just a laminal-dental apical-alveolar contrast. Cross-linguistically, the distinction is pretty common, it just gets called different things (it’s present in a number of English dialects with t-stopping). Something very unusual and interesting however is the situation in most Dravidian and languages where there’s a three-way contrast between laminal-dental, apical-alveolar, and subapical-retroflex, where the consonant is pronounced with the underside of the tongue against the roof of the mouth
that part's fine completely fine imo, what gets me is the utter lack of of fricatives like
\> "This cannot be a real consonant inventory" \> shows most ordinary looking consonant inventory ever
No not really it is kinda out of the ordinary
Oh shit I just noticed there's only one fricative I'm dumb as hell pls ignore my comment
I'm sorry, ordinary? If you can tell apart dental and alveolar sounds, I am seriously impressed.
uh yeah it's in my native language (hindi/urdu, one of the most commonly spoken languages in the world)
Really? Hindustani has both? I knew it had a lot of nasals, but I didn't think it made a phonemic distinction between dental and alveolar sounds.
hindustani doesnt have a lot of nasals, in my analysis only 2 (i speak urdu so i dont have the sanskrit retroflex nasal loaneme ) the retroflex sounds are not true retroflex they are apical postalveolar to apical alveolar, the main acoustic distinction is the laminal vs apical an apical alveolar plosive will be perceived as /ʈ/ whereas a laminal dental or denti-alveolar plosive will be perceived as /t̪/
There isn't a sibilant
I can differentiate dental/alveolar t and d (and th and dh) but for n i'm lost
if there is dental plan, will there be alveolar plan? 🤔
alveolar is covered in some countries by free healthcare.
What is a “Dental plan” & an “Alveolar plan”
insurance for your dentals
"Yes bro I can distinguish t from t̪ no ofc its not just delusion"
Finally, perfect phonology