a bold phonological analysis of toaq coda consonants!

Conlangs Toaq
,
1

i'm writing this assuming you somewhat know how toaq phonology works. if you don't, check koitieq for an overview, and the delta refgram for the juice that i'll be getting into when we talk about coda [m].

so, toaq codas can have either no consonant at the end, [ŋ], or [m]. (a key difference between those two is that a long, initial vowel is always shortened before [ŋ], but before [m], it's still long. this will matter for later.)

[ŋ] in particular seems like it could just be phonologized under /n/ — after all, they never contrast. any word that has a [ŋ] after a vowel, actually has it after a glottal stop, as in [pulls random word from dictionary], nhuq'ao [ˈɲuŋʔaw] (soakue). so, you'd always know from an underlying /nan/ that it has to be [naŋ], because *[ŋaŋ], *[ŋan], etc are not possible. (alternatively, we could analyse [ŋ] as being /ɲ/.)

now let's get to my weird theory about [m]. the refgram has this to say about vowel length and coda [m]:

For example, nogı is pronounced [ˈnoː.gi], noqgı is pronounced [ˈnɔŋ.gi], and nomgı is pronounced [ˈnoːm.gi].

this implies that coda [m] is not like /n/ [ŋ], and also not like the glides that end diphthongs, since something like kaı is [ˈkaɪ̯], with a short vowel. (/ao/ is a special case, as in stressed syllables it can be disyllabic [aː.o]). and here is where i get silly and unserious — what if coda [m] is actually some sort of moraic nasal? a minor syllable of its own or whatever idk these terms?

if, say, nam 'bread' is actually /na.m/, then this explains why it gets realized with a long vowel, [naːm]! this would also explain the thing in the refgram about /m.m/ being realized as [mə.m], with an epenthetic schwa — it's because the first, coda /m/ is actually its own syllable!

this is like kinda serious but kind of also not serious. i came up with this theory with lanru's help; me and her have very unconventional theories about lojban phonology anyway..

comments agreements disagreements etc welcome. also cake i'd like some,

3 Likes
2

on another note this means that we could write every single [ŋ] with ⟨n⟩ with no loss of information (just like how in romanized japanese ⟨n⟩ stands for the whatevercodanasal that varies depending on what comes after it). but i know you guys like your ⟨q⟩

edit: evie has brought an edge-case to my attention — -nh- [ɲ] vs. -qh- [ŋ.h]. otherwise, though, you could.

3

I like this analysis! The /m.m/ being realized as [mə.m] always felt a bit off to me, even if it was required for monoparsing. It makes a lot more sense under your analysis.

1 Like
4

wait, is /mm/ [məm] required for monoparsing? if the gemination is contrastive, even if only across word boundaries, then surely the monoparsing doesn't break, right?

but i'm glad you like my analysis!

5

I mean...I guess it isn't, but it reinforces the boundary.

1 Like
6

Loglang phonology is always very interesting, to say the least. Interesting analysis!

7

I'm a huge fan of this analysis and I'm probably gonna incorporate it into my dialect. Pronouncing coda m as its own syllable is fun

3 Likes
8

I think that coda /m/ being it's own syllable actually makes some sense. I mean, Toaq Gamma had /ə/, so a hypothetical word "mamy" could become "mam".

That said, as I'm writing this, I'm realising that this does not explain what happened to other syllables that had /ə/, soo nevermind on my theory. But your analysis makes a lot of sense, in my opinion.

1 Like
9

i didn't intend it to be an actual pronunciation difference, just an analysis one — it's underlyingly its own syllable (or underlyingly /mə/ if that floats your boat more, but you'd have to posit an extra vowel for that) but still realized as a regular coda consonant after a long vowel

actually pronouncing it as its own syllable is kinda fun though i like that

11

Like how in Japanese, n is its own mora, as in ko.n.ni.chi.wa

1 Like