Yesterday, I submitted a post asking for your help in creating a global auxiliary conlang. With not much interest being shown in the first day of posting, I decided to go ahead and embark on this project alone.

Phonology & Orthography

My “north star” when designing the phonemic inventory for the language was striking a balance between usability and accessibility. In my humble opinion, minimalist languages such as Toki Pona excel in the latter but utterly fail in the former. More complicated languages such as Esperanto and Ido tend to do the opposite (they can be quite eurocentric). I believe I have found a happy medium between the two.

Consonants

The language’s consonants (and their graphs) are as follows:

  • Stops: /ph/ (p), /b/, /th/ (t), /d/, /kh/ (k), /g/
  • Fricatives: /f/, /s/, h /x~h/ (h)
  • Nasals: /m/, /n/
  • Approximants: /w/, /l/, /j/
  • Rhotic: /r~ʀ~ɾ~ɺ~ɹ~ɻ~ʁ~…/ (r)

I have chosen to aspirate the unvoiced stops to allow speakers from more languages to distinguish them. Those who’s native tongue distinguises stops on aspiration can use [ph] and [p] for /ph/ and /b/, respectively, and those who’s native tongue does so on voice can use [p] and [b].

Rhotics vary wildly cross-linguistically, making including one in a lingua franca very difficult. However, with how I plan to derive the language’s vocabulary, doing so seemed necessary. As such, I have coined the “whatever the heck rhotic.” So long as the sound produced is a rhotic, it is the “correct” phoneme for <r>. However, speakers who are able to produce multiple rhotics should use some discretion when deciding which one they use as some can be harder to distinguish than others.

My decision to include the remaining consonants simply came down to their presence cross-linguistically. I initially planned to create a heat map of the IPA with each phoneme’s “temperature” being a weighted sum of its occurrences in the languages on Ethnologue’s list of the most spoken languages, but the work required for that seemed to outweigh the benefit. As such, I did what every self-respecting linguist would do and eyeballed it!

Vowels

The language’s vowels are as follows:

  • High: /i/, /u/
  • Mid: /e/, /o/
  • Low: /a/

Ah, the ol’ five-vowel system, tried and true. I mean, there’s not much to say here. Moving on!

Phonotactics

The language’s phonotactic rules are largely inspired by those of Toki Pona. They are as follows:

  1. All syllables follow a (C)V(S) structure, where “S” denotes a sonorant that is not /w/ or /j/.
  2. Null onsets are word-initial only.
  3. No adjacent sonorants; codas always assimilate to following onsets.
  4. Words may be no longer than three syllables.
  5. To reduce sliding, /j/ is only permitted before /a, o, u/, and /w/ is only so before /a, e, i/.
  6. The penultimate vowel is always stressed.

Final Thoughts

This may not be much, but I am trying to refrain from hyperfixating and making everything too quickly as I want your thoughts on every step I take. What do you like so far? What could be improved?

Collaborators are always welcome!

Edit: Typos (of course)

  • circuitfarmer
    2·
    5 days ago

    I didn’t see your first post, but this is an interesting project and I’m looking forward to seeing more about it!

    It sounds like you are going at this primarily based on accessibility to non-native speakers (as was the approach to Esperanto, but purely for Indo-European). Are you using some data source to determine commonality of some phones versus others? In the same vein, are you taking into account any metrics of difficulty in production?

    For example, you mention aspirating unvoiced stops “to allow speakers from more languages to distinguish them”, i.e. a matter of phonemic comprehension – but you could also simply make all stops voiced (which would run counter to a Greenbergian Correlation, but it is a conlang after all).

    Related to the above, have you considered, from an information theoretical perspective, how many phones should be in the inventory? The values in natural languages vary quite wildly, and languages with smaller inventories tend to have more homophones as a result of that inventory. I’m curious if you have considered the implications for syntax from choices about the phonology.

    • sbf@feddit.orgOP
      3·
      5 days ago

      Are you using some data source to determine commonality of some phones versus others?

      Not at first, nope. That’s what I meant when I said I “eyeballed” it, lol. However, thanks to @lvxferre@mander.xyz, I have access to PHOIBLE’s list of the most common sound segments! As such, I have slightly modified the phonology since posting.

      In the same vein, are you taking into account any metrics of difficulty in production?

      Yes… if you count me pronouncing it and being like “Eh, no. That’s no good.” As I’ve only ever made artlangs, I wasn’t aware that such a thing existed. Is there a “standard,” or should I try to whip something up?

      One objectively-derived thing I AM doing is trying to reduce sliding with sonorants and vowels. The phonotactics shown in the post are, like the phonology, now outdated.

      but you could also simply make all stops voiced

      That would force listeners to become familiar with distinguishing aspiration, no? The point was to allow for some variability. Sure, that might muddy the waters between speakers from vastly different phonological backgrounds, but it ensure the same language can be understood among those who speak similar languages. Now, that isn’t really the point of a global lingua franca, but the waters would’ve potentially already been muddied with just a voice or aspiration distinction.

      have you considered, from an information theoretical perspective, how many phones should be in the inventory?

      More than Toki Pona! I have no “objective” way of deciding this, but I think I’ve found a nice amount; it’s not too many, not too few.

      And a final note: This may be strange, but I love your syntax, lol. Due to my constant reading of old literature, I, inordinately, love, say, a relative clause—or perhaps an aside—to break up the flow of a sentence.

      • circuitfarmer
        2·
        4 days ago

        That would force listeners to become familiar with distinguishing aspiration, no?

        I think you allude to VOT here (voice onset time), which does vary somewhat by language – though it would not matter if all stops were voiced, because any misinterpretation would be meaningless (i.e. other options for interpreting stops would not exist). If aspiration weren’t contrastive at all, then you would allow for a higher degree of variation in what people speaking this language could sound like (i.e. they could be aspirating their voiced stops and thereby lengthening VOT), but it wouldn’t matter, because all stop realizations would conflate to their voiced versions – only allophonic variation would be possible.

        I totally understand your point about variability in terms of phonemes, though I think it would be functionally equivalent to have more stops (only voiced) as opposed to fewer stops (voiced and voiceless). But of course, all your choices are ultimately arbitrary here.

        In any event, thanks for your response! I look forward to hearing more about what you develop.

        PS-

        And a final note: This may be strange, but I love your syntax, lol.

        Thanks. I’m not sure where I picked up the habit – possibly from my dissertation advisor, who also tended to use a lot of pauses and asides in writing. I’m not sure that I speak the same way.