Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: The Story of Guper the Foolish Troll

From:Raymond A. Brown <raybrown@...>
Date:Sunday, February 28, 1999, 17:43
At 8:28 pm -0600 27/2/99, dunn patrick w wrote:
.........
> >To whoever criticized the phonology.
<nit> I said I was puzzled & looking for enlightenment - I gave the reasons why I was puzzled so you'd know on what points to enlighten me. That's not what I understand by criticism. <end of nit> ......
> >But ya know what? Voiced glotal stops may be impossible, but if so, I >deserve some money, cause I'm making one right now all *over* the damn >place! Guess bumblebees can't fly, either.
Bumblebees certainly can fly. I don't know why you'd think they can't. Nor do I see their relevance to this argument. But I clearly spelled out my reasons why I'd always understood that voiced glottal plosives are not possible. If they are possible, all I'm asking is some enlightenment on what I've misunderstood - nothing more, nothing less.
>Glotal approximants? Nope, I can't really make 'em either. I can >*imagine* them, and come pretty close (sort of a really raspy h, mixed >with a half a gargle).
But with respect, both raspy h and half gargles surely need _friction_. My understanding is that approximants are _frictionless_ continuants. It's that the things are frictionless that puzzles me.
>But then, I'm not a troll. It's purposfully >alien, since Trolls are alien from humans. And if you can't figure out a >glotal nasal, well, "I will weep for thee. Methinks this fall of thine >is like another fall of man."
A glottal nasal? But your original mail said nothing about a glottal nasal so I fail to see the relevance of your quote. You said, and I quote, "ng nasal approximate". I said that "nasal approximate" had no meaning for me; that is true - it hasn't. "Glottal nasal" does have a meaning. BUT: At 1:34 am -0600 28/2/99, dunn patrick w wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Feb 1999, Josh Roth wrote:
......
>> I'm assuming that the g was meant to show that the sound is velar, which >>would >> make this a velar nasal apporximant. That's easy to make. I'm making one >> right now. It's just a y (/j/) sound, but further back, and nasalized.
.........
> >Josh is right. > >--Patrick
Oh dear - now I'm even more puzzled. First you weep for me (do I detect sarcasm here?) because I can't imagine a _glottal_ nasal (tho in fact I can), now you say that Josh is right: it's really a _velar_ nasal approximant. I've pronounced velar nasals correctly for nearly 60 years - no problem. I know perfectly well what velar approximants are. I think I could also manage a velar nasal approximant. ------------------------------------------------------------- [...]
>ugly sounds on a chart -- for one thing, I don't think glottal sounds are >ugly, but apparently I'm in the minority on that one
Nor do I - nor did I ever suggest that I did. I don't find anything ugly with our English /h/ and certainly the voiced 'h' is IMO pleasant enough. I don't like the common Brit use of the glottal stop instead of medial and final /t/, but the sound itself is not particularly unpleasant. Ray.