<p>I've sought for justification for the phoneme inventory of my conlang, but finally, I think I found one, at least for consonants.</p>
<div class="s-table-container"><table class="s-table">
<thead>
<tr>
<th></th>
<th>순음 Labial</th>
<th>설음 Coronal</th>
<th>반설음 &quot;Semi-coronal&quot;</th>
<th>치두음 Front Sibilant</th>
<th>정치음 Rear Sibilant</th>
<th>아음 Dorsal</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>Fortis</strong></td>
<td>P [p]</td>
<td>T [t]</td>
<td><strong>L [ɭ]</strong></td>
<td>C [t͜s]</td>
<td>Q [t͜ɕ]</td>
<td>K [kʰ]</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Lenis</strong></td>
<td>M [m]</td>
<td>N [n]</td>
<td><strong>R [ɻ~ɽ]</strong></td>
<td>Z [z]</td>
<td>J [ʑ]</td>
<td>G [k~k̚~g]</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table></div>
<p>This classification of consonants is due to the medieval phonologists of Chinese and Korean. And the orthography is quite consistent to the pinyin. The syllable structure is <code>(C)V(C)</code>, where the coda is lenis if present.</p>
<p>What I'm unsure about is the so-called &quot;semi-coronal&quot; consonants, as which Sejong The Great classified. Though Korean puts the lateral and the rhotic as the same phoneme, namely ㄹ, I decided to declare them as different phonemes because I wanted some &quot;symmetric&quot; structure for my conlang.</p>
<p>I think Sejong himself would've been convinced, but what about phonologists of medieval Chinese languages, or those of any other languages with strict fortis/lenis pairs?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-04T19:34:51.600Z
Are you asking if it's phonologically natural—that is, if you'd expect a lateral in a leniting environment to turn into a rhotic, or a rhotic in a fortiting environment to turn into a lateral—or if it's natural for someone describing a language (especially in mediaeval times) to group them this way?
Draconis
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-04T20:21:26.530Z
@Draconis The latter.
Dannyu NDos
<conlang-creation><phonology><naturalism><chinese>
Is it natural to declare laterals and rhotics as a fortis/lenis pair?
# Is it natural to declare laterals and rhotics as a fortis/lenis pair?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-03-03)

I've sought for justification for the phoneme inventory of my conlang, but finally, I think I found one, at least for consonants.

|  | 순음 Labial | 설음 Coronal | 반설음 "Semi-coronal" | 치두음 Front Sibilant | 정치음 Rear Sibilant | 아음 Dorsal |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| **Fortis** | P [p] | T [t] | **L [ɭ]** | C [t͜s] | Q [t͜ɕ] | K [kʰ] |
| **Lenis** | M [m] | N [n] | **R [ɻ~ɽ]** | Z [z] | J [ʑ] | G [k~k̚~g] |

This classification of consonants is due to the medieval phonologists of Chinese and Korean. And the orthography is quite consistent to the pinyin. The syllable structure is `(C)V(C)`, where the coda is lenis if present.

What I'm unsure about is the so-called "semi-coronal" consonants, as which Sejong The Great classified. Though Korean puts the lateral and the rhotic as the same phoneme, namely ㄹ, I decided to declare them as different phonemes because I wanted some "symmetric" structure for my conlang.

I think Sejong himself would've been convinced, but what about phonologists of medieval Chinese languages, or those of any other languages with strict fortis/lenis pairs?

**Tags:** conlang-creation, phonology, naturalism, chinese
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Are you asking if it's phonologically natural—that is, if you'd expect a lateral in a leniting environment to turn into a rhotic, or a rhotic in a fortiting environment to turn into a lateral—or if it's natural for someone describing a language (especially in mediaeval times) to group them this way?  
> **username_0**: @Draconis The latter.  

---

## 0 answers

