On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Brett Williams<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I
> came up with a phonology just now just by picking things that I like--
> a buttload of retroflexes, a bilabial trill, etc.  I would like
> anyone's opinion as to whether this selection is even vaguely
> reasonable or naturalistic.  TIA.

The consonant inventor seems reasonably symmetrical but not
unnaturally so.   I suspect it's pretty unusual for a natlang to have
/n`/ and /F/ but not /n/ or /m/, but I don't know for sure.   It's
also unusual (or unheard of?) for a natlang to have only one click.
(Alex Fink knows a lot more about clicks than I do; you'll probably
hear from him.)

It's a little unusual to have /&/ but not /a/ or /A/; it's not unheard
of, though.   Hixkaryana, like your conlang, has /&/ and /O/ but not
/a/, /A/, or /o/.

> On the right are the values in CXS and on the left the latin letters
> (and two digraphs, "bb" and "pp") that I intend to use for them.
> (BTW, is there a better or more standard format that I could have
> presented this in?)

I think it's somewhat more standard to present the phoneme inventory
in manner of articulation / point of articulation order, rather than
(or in addition to) in alphabetical order of the romanization.   That
makes it easier to see the interrelations.   Ideally you'd do it in
the format of an IPA chart, with only the phonemes your language uses
shown -- I've been meaning to do a chart like that for the gzb
phonology page -- but it's hard to do in an email; I'd tend to do it
like this (using Toki Pona's phonology for a simple example):

Plosives: /k t p/
Fricative: /s/
Nasals: /n m/
Approximants: /j l w/
Vowels: /i e a u o/

What are the phonotactics like?  I infer from the  fact that you're
using double letters as diacritics that you don't have geminate

Jim Henry