Why did you include branches of the IE family (Germanic, Rmoance, Indo-Iranian) instead of the entire IE family as one option, whereas you included full families like Afroasiatic and Turkish?
Probably somewhere along the equator.
Also... what even.. is the point of a copula... like why is there a copula in an IAL?
Basically… but it’s spoke to a pers- oh… I forgot the to. Fixed.
Romanized:
Gi i halfamil ba sil an jan se am lin (now that i think of it, you should allow /l/ in the coda)
For Cyrillization, I think I will use my own system (to be more consistent with pronunciation).
Consonants the same as yours (except for /j/ which is more complicated and /w/ which is written with в), vowels:
а /a/ я /ja/
э /e/ е /je/
и /i/
о /o/ ё /jo/
у /u/ ю /ju/
Ги и халфамил ба сил ан ян сэ ам лин
For Arabicization, I'll modify the vowel system slightly.
/a/, /e/ and /i/ are the same, but /i/ and /u/ are written ـِـي and ـُـو (to distinguish from /e/ and /i/). If a syllable starts with a vowel, an alif (ا) is added before the vowel, with hamzah above for /a/, /o/, /u/ and hamzah below for /e/, /i/.
عِي إي هَلفَمِيل بَ سيل أَن يَن سِ أَم لِين
For Devanagarization, I will use the independent forms for zero onset along with the diacritic forms if the syllable has an onset.
गि इ हल्फ़मिल् ब सिल् अन् यन् से अम् लिन्
.. I have a lot of things to say about Graecization, I will use this system to be more... greek (spelling & pronunciation):
/m/: μ
/n/: ν
/ŋ/: γγ
/p/: π
/t/: τ
/k/: κ
/b/: μβ
/d/: νδ
/g/: γκ
/f/: φ
/s/: σ/ς
/h/: χ
/w/: β
/j/: /ja/, /je/, /ji/, /jo/, /ju/: για, γε, γι, γιο, γιυ
/l/: λ
/a/: α
/e/: ε
/i/: ι
/o/: ο
/u/: ου
So:
Γκι ι χαλφαμιλ μπα σιλ αν γιαν σε αμ λιν
For Koreanization, I realized that you used the same letter for /p/ and /f/, I will use ᄈ for /f/. Also, /j/ and /w/ are more complicated. Also, korean syllables cannot end in /t/, /s/, ᄈ so I add the 으 vowel to them.
기 이 할빠밀 바 실 안 얀 세 암 린
FINALLY
Is this a joke about how simplalang is an isolate?
By english verb structure I mean the continuous aspect. You're telling me that "I eat" is "Gi nom" but "I am eating" is "Gi da nom"? A lot of languages don't distinguish between these two.
Guess what language doesn't have articles? Mandarin Chinese. Also, basically all the slavic languages besides a few exceptions.
If you want it to be easy for everyone to learn, you really shouldn't have articles. I mean, what even is the point of articles anyway? If instead of saying "I see a man in the café", I say "I see man in café" you can still understand me right?
5/10
This is supposed to be an IAL, so grammar should be as simple as possible.
You have:
English verb structure (auxiliary verbs, as well as continuous aspect)
Definite article
Copula
Your vocabulary is so restrictive i can't say anything. you don't even have words for "go" and "and"
@CyanSurfer make sure that there aren't words that sound too similar
I'll join ig
The bilabial approximant [β̞] is a humanly possible sound, it exists in Spanish and Japanese (and some others).
@Eçeþesi the simplalang word for black is "nig"
I don't think it's a coincidence. Simplalang phonotactics doesn't allow voiced obstruents at the coda... so... i think it's intentional since they didn't change it.
@CyanSurfer You still allow /l/ to be pronounced as [w]... but then how to distinguish from /w/? Also, why create new numerals when hindu-arabic numerals are already pretty international?
@CyanSurfer yes like the glottal stop but it doesn't need to be pronounced
Also, /h/ is not an obstruent, i don't think you should allow it in coda. Also, some of your vocabulary does not obey your phonotactics..
You don’t have to analyze them as diphthongs. You can have, instead of for example /lei/, /le.i/ and it would work. You can analyze the two vowels as part of separate syllables and it wouldn’t change anything
Also t what about the syllable division symbol?
@CyanSurfer let me rephrase that:
Nasals and voiceless obstruents
Also what about the rest of the things i mentioned?
If you allow /l/ to be a [w] sound, how do you distinguish it from /w/??
I feel like they shouldn't be treated as one sound, like you can just treat them as part of separate syllables, there's basically no difference between /a.i/ and /ai/... Like I said, most languages don't have diphthongs.
Ok, I think CVC is a good syllable structure, just make sure the coda is a bit more restrictive (i suggest only allowing voiceless obstruents and nasals in the coda)
But like, why do we need the symbol? Isn't it already clear what syllable a sound is part of? If I write 'lemisa' instead of 'le•mi•sa' is it less clear?
Now you've changed phonology, why did you allow /l/ to make the [w] sound when /w/ is already a phoneme? Also, you basically need to change your vocabulary to fit the new phonology
Also, you somehow made the diphthongs worse.... most languages don't even have diphthongs. Just treat them as two separate vowels.
The phonotactics table also needs to be changed
Explain why you need the syllable division symbol.
@Eçeþesi yea i guess you're right