Re: Unrealistically unbalanced phonologies (was: Re: Using word generators (was Re: Semitic root word list?))

Hi!

Lars Finsen writes:
> Den 9. jan. 2007 kl. 15.19 skrev David J. Peterson:
> >
> > The only problem I have found with this approach is that it can
> > lead to an unbalanced phonology.
>
> I've had some unbalanced phonology problems with my conlangs as well,
> although I don't use machinery to create words. Urianian is the
> result of fitting an IE etymology to the names I invented for my
> conculture in my youth, and when I finally felt I was arriving at
> some useful phonetic laws I found that I had no 'o', a vowel that's
> pretty common in most languages.
No 'o' is perfect!  Much better than one word with 'o'. :-)  At least
in my personal view.

Náhuatl misses /u/ but has /a/, /e/, /i/ and /o/ (this also holds for
the long vowels).  It happened due to a merger of /i/ and /u/
(probably via [y]).

(Ah, well, 'Náhuatl' contains 'u'.  But not /u/, as it is /na:watK)/
and it does have /w/.)

And did not Proto-Germanic (we get closer) lack /o/?  It did have /o:/
though.

> Indeed, o's were relatively scarce in my onomastic material (a fact
> which I suppose is the reason for my result), but not totally
> absent. Particularly it's more frequent in the initial
> position. What I have done in trying to rescue my language is to
> allow the diphthong au to develop into a o.
Very feasible, of course.

> A promising candidate, as it often occurs initially. I have also
> tentatively allowed labiovelars to round following vowels on their
> way to become fricatives so that 'a' becomes 'o' for example. Still
> it feels awkward that the o should bypass the normal chronological
> process this way.
Hmm?  Why?  This seems perfectly natural to me.

**Henrik

Reply