>>3294I'd like to plug in the only relevant study I'm aware of on the topic of finding languages beautiful across the board:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2218367120The strongest predictors are familiarity (+12% rating on average, whereas most language-specific effects are around ±2% at most) and prestige, leading to situations like German being rated lower than phonetically similar languages (namely Icelandic), another factor was the voices themselves having a lower pitch.
>tonesThis seemed to be the most cross-linguistically relevant negative effect, which the researchers theorize as having to do with a preference for lower pitch variability that phonemic tones go against, and somehow Chinese speakers were the harshest on it perhaps because it particularly messed with their perception. But you can also see how the language having a male speaker had a considerably stronger negative effect than either pitch or tones,
lmao. Most importantly, all of this is on average, but when you check individual preferences there can be some wild fluctuations. Consider the both positive and negative assesments of French in this very thread.
>>3297>fortis and lenis consonantsI'm not sure what you meant by this because that's typically most of them, but Korean actually has a tripartite division of unaspirated-aspirated-
tense.
>the vowel system is also ugly as hellI don't think this means what you think it means. Their vowel phonemes are simpler than those of Germanic, Slavic, or French.