Talk:Jasost

You have an aspirated/unaspirated contrast for alveolar plosives but not for bilabial, post-alveolar or velar plosives/affricates. This discordance is a bit problematic if you want your language to be naturalistic. Also, you have no glottal fricative, which is very peculiar for a language that features phonemic aspiration. Your vowel system is a bit unbalanced. Adding an open front vowel would fill up the vowel space a bit better. Good job overall though :)

John S.

John S.,

Thanks for the feedback. The vowel system I have noted is incomplete - I keep forgetting to update it. I see what you mean about the lack of aspirated/un-aspirated pairs and how the creates an imbalance. I'll adress that soon. I do really appreciate you spending the time to gaze the incomplete, constantly drafted language that is Jasost.

~Jake~

I would have to disagree on all three of the points. The vowel system without a front-low /a/ is also found in Proto-Germanic, and aspiration in coronals tends to be the most stable; as /p/ is often missing in plosives, it can drag /pʰ/ away into lenition, leaving /b/ > /p/ and /bʰ/ > /b/, and with /g/ often missing, /k/ > /g/ and /kʰ/ > /k/ can follow in suite. It is also good to note that Mandarin, which has an aspiration contrast on voiceless consonants, lacks glottal consonants, and Hindi-Urdu, which has aspiration on both voiced and voiceless consonants, has only /ɦ/, the voiced equivalent of /h/. 10:25, August 29, 2012 (UTC) ~)  The Elector, Darkness Immaculate 

Well, supposedly in Proto-Germanic. But I am fairly confident that Navajo lacks the front-open /a/, at least in some accents. In addition my neighbouring language Norwegian lacks an /a/, and your vowel inventory is very close to that of Ukrainian.

I do agree that during those restrictions, your circumstances would apply, but with simply coronal aspiration and a rather full plosive inventory, it would be more plausibe to retain aspiration in more positions.

Concerning the glottal "fricative", well, I concur. non nobis solvm 13:42, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

Icelandic has a rather full plosive inventory, fuller than this, but Southern Icelandic contrasts only /k/ and /ɡ/ (and by extension /c/ and /ɟ/, but those are of disputed phonemic status) intervocalically and after nasals, leaving /p/ and /b/ and /t/ and /d/ to merge into /p/ and /t/ respectively (the actual values of these sounds are closer to [pʰ] [p] [tʰ] [t] [cʰ] [c] and [kʰ] [k]). I'm sure that more examples could be found (thanks, Watt) 14:31, August 29, 2012 (UTC) ~)  The Elector, Darkness Immaculate 

Either side has misunderstood something - what I meant was that simply distinguishing aspiration on the /t/ and /d/ when having a fairly large plosive inventory, one would expect more of them to be aspirated. Granted, no phonological changes has occurred. Personally, I like a little irregularity. Maybe we ought to stop spamming the page now. non nobis solvm 16:38, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

I'm giving a natural precendent, simply. Everything has a precedent of some sort 18:06, August 29, 2012 (UTC) ~)  The Elector, Darkness Immaculate 

Of course they have. Must have misunderstood you somehow. non nobis solvm 18:31, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

I see you changed your vowel inventory. It looks more realistic now I think. You put /e:/ in the "near-front" column instead of the "front" column though, which I'm guessing you did by mistake. John S.