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

Den 10. jan. 2007 kl. 03.10 skrev Henrik Theiling:
>
> No 'o' is perfect!  Much better than one word with 'o'. :-)  At least
> in my personal view.
You don't like 'o'? I like o's, as in Odysseus, Orestes, Ortega,
Orenburg, Omsk, Oregon, Oklahoma, Ohio, Oberammergau, Oslo. There's
something (mal)odorously perfect about it. But Urianians don't seem
to like them.

> And did not Proto-Germanic (we get closer) lack /o/?  It did have /o:/
> though.
Yes, you are right. Well, there are all kinds of curious vowel
systems out there. What about Aryan for example? And on the other
side - Norwegian.

>> 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.
Of course, that process is not abnormal in itself. I'm just a little
uneasy considering whether it really could result in a vowel that's
otherwise not in use. But I suppose it could when they have the au->o
effect as well.

LEF

Reply