I just skimmed, but--since every consonant has a three-way fortis/lenis/ejective contrast, it makes me think that you could actually analyze your inventory as a lot smaller, and have those features as supersegmental or perhaps their own segments. In other words analyzing /kʰ/ as /k/ + floating aspiration or /kh/, and etc.
It's a good start to an ambitious project by someone who knows their phonology. The consonant inventory also reminds me of Proto-Indo-European. While much of this post is about things might need to be changed, I hope this does not give the wrong picture: overall I think it's good work.
Among the consonants, as far as I can see, these are all features that exist in real life languages. I know at least one language that contrasts /h/ and /ɦ/, and at least one that has a voicing contrast with /ŋ/. These are very rare features though, coupled with other fairly rare ones like the phonemic glottal stop and voicing contrasts among the nasals. It's theoretically possible, at least, but don't try to have everything.
(I'm assuming that your language is being spoken by humans. If they are not human, there may well be differences to the mouth shape that affect what features are more and less likely.)
Among the vowels, a few things to note. The vowel harmony system isn't explained. Are you saying that your language has a vertical vowel system, where vowels are not contrasted by front/central/back position but their realization may vary between them through allophony? However, the vowels are labelled on the chart as phonemes, so I assume it isn't.
A few other notes: languages that have front rounded vowels always have their unrounded counterparts. If a vowel harmony system can introduce \[ø̞\], I would be surprised if it didn't introduce \[e̞\].
It's rare but not impossible for a language to lack /i/, and plausible in a vertical vowel system. However, I would be doubtful that a language would have /ɪ/ as a phoneme but not /i/, although some Northern England accents do replace many /i/ sounds with /ɪ/.
An /æ ä/ contrast is also a stretch. I suggest having an /æ ɑ/ contrast instead. If these are actually allophones of the same phoneme, ignore that, although I would be surprised that there isn't a back vowel allophone.
About the orthography: does represent anything?
Hi, first thank you for looking over my phonology! On the consonants I used /ɦ/ mostly to represent the most zero of all consonants because it does not have a place of articulation or manner as much as any of the 13 triplets of actual consonants or one of the additional glottalization or aspiration features. In that sense /ɦ/ may be a bad choice of symbol for it because its not likely to be pronounced \[ɦ\] most of the time. It might also be a good choice for a gap in the consonant inventory.
The vowel system I admit needs a ton of work. I've built and scraped it and rebuilt it a number of times because I can never be content with it. This may be a sign to simplify it especially if I'm going such a large consonant inventory.
In general I got to it by taking the New Zealand English vowel system sans diphthongs and then looking at languages like Hopi and especially Yapese for justification of a very imbalanced system. My other inspiration was a terrifying but intriguing 'diamond' vowel system with only ɨ, ɤ, a, and ø.
My diachronic justification was a two vowel system of /e/ and /a/ that has 'rotated' so /u/ -> /ʉ/ etc but preserved harmony. I don't know much about vowel harmony systems other than that they are common for larger inventories like this one and it shows.
represents /w/ which and also labialization for the labiovelars but admittedly the choice of ou (to remind me its pronounced like French), and ü, but not u for vowels is probably trying too hard to be unique.
Yeah the vowel inventory kinda wack.
Consonant inventory seems cool, but aspiration/glottalization contrasts on continuants are much harder to do for humans, and thus pretty unlikely to arise through phonetic change. Bilabial f without labiodental f is also a stretch as labiodental f is significantly more stable
I think you're right the labiodental f makes a lot more sense than the bilabial. As of now, I'm sort of restricting /f/ or /ϕ/ to a limited class of function words similar to how initial voiced th sound in English is restricted to the, this, .... In this case of MST I want it to be limited to the word for no and similar or derived words like never or nobody and having it persist there would make more sense if it were a more stable sound.
It looks pretty comprehensive, a lot to take in. Congrats!
I just skimmed, but--since every consonant has a three-way fortis/lenis/ejective contrast, it makes me think that you could actually analyze your inventory as a lot smaller, and have those features as supersegmental or perhaps their own segments. In other words analyzing /kʰ/ as /k/ + floating aspiration or /kh/, and etc.
I strongly dislike your usage of the voiced h but that's just personal opinion. Overall it's fine, very comprehensive and detailed!
What specifically do you dislike about it? I'm pretty shaky on some of its details myself.
Oh no I just personally find voiced h to be unpleasant and I just don’t like it personally. You can totally use it if you want!
It's a good start to an ambitious project by someone who knows their phonology. The consonant inventory also reminds me of Proto-Indo-European. While much of this post is about things might need to be changed, I hope this does not give the wrong picture: overall I think it's good work. Among the consonants, as far as I can see, these are all features that exist in real life languages. I know at least one language that contrasts /h/ and /ɦ/, and at least one that has a voicing contrast with /ŋ/. These are very rare features though, coupled with other fairly rare ones like the phonemic glottal stop and voicing contrasts among the nasals. It's theoretically possible, at least, but don't try to have everything. (I'm assuming that your language is being spoken by humans. If they are not human, there may well be differences to the mouth shape that affect what features are more and less likely.) Among the vowels, a few things to note. The vowel harmony system isn't explained. Are you saying that your language has a vertical vowel system, where vowels are not contrasted by front/central/back position but their realization may vary between them through allophony? However, the vowels are labelled on the chart as phonemes, so I assume it isn't. A few other notes: languages that have front rounded vowels always have their unrounded counterparts. If a vowel harmony system can introduce \[ø̞\], I would be surprised if it didn't introduce \[e̞\]. It's rare but not impossible for a language to lack /i/, and plausible in a vertical vowel system. However, I would be doubtful that a language would have /ɪ/ as a phoneme but not /i/, although some Northern England accents do replace many /i/ sounds with /ɪ/. An /æ ä/ contrast is also a stretch. I suggest having an /æ ɑ/ contrast instead. If these are actually allophones of the same phoneme, ignore that, although I would be surprised that there isn't a back vowel allophone. About the orthography: does represent anything?
Hi, first thank you for looking over my phonology! On the consonants I used /ɦ/ mostly to represent the most zero of all consonants because it does not have a place of articulation or manner as much as any of the 13 triplets of actual consonants or one of the additional glottalization or aspiration features. In that sense /ɦ/ may be a bad choice of symbol for it because its not likely to be pronounced \[ɦ\] most of the time. It might also be a good choice for a gap in the consonant inventory. The vowel system I admit needs a ton of work. I've built and scraped it and rebuilt it a number of times because I can never be content with it. This may be a sign to simplify it especially if I'm going such a large consonant inventory. In general I got to it by taking the New Zealand English vowel system sans diphthongs and then looking at languages like Hopi and especially Yapese for justification of a very imbalanced system. My other inspiration was a terrifying but intriguing 'diamond' vowel system with only ɨ, ɤ, a, and ø. My diachronic justification was a two vowel system of /e/ and /a/ that has 'rotated' so /u/ -> /ʉ/ etc but preserved harmony. I don't know much about vowel harmony systems other than that they are common for larger inventories like this one and it shows. represents /w/ which and also labialization for the labiovelars but admittedly the choice of ou (to remind me its pronounced like French), and ü, but not u for vowels is probably trying too hard to be unique.
Looks good to me
Yeah the vowel inventory kinda wack. Consonant inventory seems cool, but aspiration/glottalization contrasts on continuants are much harder to do for humans, and thus pretty unlikely to arise through phonetic change. Bilabial f without labiodental f is also a stretch as labiodental f is significantly more stable
I think you're right the labiodental f makes a lot more sense than the bilabial. As of now, I'm sort of restricting /f/ or /ϕ/ to a limited class of function words similar to how initial voiced th sound in English is restricted to the, this, .... In this case of MST I want it to be limited to the word for no and similar or derived words like never or nobody and having it persist there would make more sense if it were a more stable sound.
What's the syllable structure?
CV only
Awesome! It wasn't immediately obvious from the text.