John Vertical wrote:
>Without further ado�
>
>Initials:
>/ t_> ts)_> tK)_> tS)_> k_> q_> /
>/p t ts) tK) tS) k q ?/
>/b_t d_t dZ)_t g_t G\_t /
>/b_v d_v /
>/f T s K S x X h/
>/v_t D_t z_t l_t Z_t G_t R_t /
>/v_v D_v z_v l_v /
>/m_0 n_0 j_0 w_0 R\_0 /
>/m_t n_t l~_t j_t w_t R\_t /
>/m_v n_v l~_v j_v w_v R\_v /
>
>_t is "brethy voice", _v is "tense voice"; this distinction has a variety
>of
>realizations in dialects.
Aargh! This IS complex. (First off, i keep thinking "_t" is _tense_...)
>The palatoalveolars are only marginally contrastiv
>with lhaterals & especially velars.
That may be, but unless one or the other is extremely rare, or conditioned
(even partially so), IMO you still need a way to distinguish them.
>Okay, onto the issue. Here's what I have for the consonants @TM:
><t' ts' tx' c' c' k'> (ejective stops/affric.)
OK t' ts' _tl'_ c' _k' q'_
><p t ts tx c c k q> (vl.stops/affric)
OK p t ts tl c k q, and 0294 (real ?) or maybe just apostrophe for /?/
><b d j g>
bh dh jh gh (breathy vd.stops/affric)
><Æ€ Ä‘>
b d (tense vd stops)
><ph th s x ch ch kh h>
f th s l-bar ç x qh h (vl.frics)
><bh dh z l jh gh>
vh ðh zh lh çh gh (brethy vd.frics)
><ƀh đh ƶ ł>
v ð z l (tense vd.frics)
><pm tn � f kr>
hm hn hy hw hr (vl.nasals/resonants)
><bm dn ln y v gr>
mh nh nl yh wh rh (breathy vd.nas/cont.)
><ƀm đn łn ? ? ǥr>
m n l y w r (tense vd. nas/res)
Just tentative, of course; I'm trying to be consistent.........
Re vowels etc. I understand the need for no diacritics, since you're going
to use them for tones-- but have you considered some other way of marking
tone? Perhaps: low XX- rising XX/ high unmarked
That would free up diacritics for the vowels
>
>Rimes:
>/i i\ u/ --> i [i-uml or i-breve or y or y-uml] u
>/e @ / --> e e-breve
>/ a A / ==> a o
>
>/i~ i\~ u~/ with following n or m
>/e~ /
>/ a~ A~ /
>
>/ai ei @i Ai/ --> ai ei e-breve+i oi
>/ai\ ei\ @u Au/ --? a e e-brev + whatever is used for i\ (ï, i-breve, ÿ)
> and ebreve+u, ou
>
>/ i@ u@ / ==> i u + i\ char.
>/e6 i6 i\6 u6 o6/ ea ia (i\+a) ua oa
>
>/ai~ i@~ e@~/ as above with foll. nasal
I'm not happy with these, actually. Your systems are a little better
(maybe)---
>
>Syllable structure allows only CV or initial syllabic N.
Is the language monosyllabic???
Do you mean the initial syllabic N can occur before a consonant? In that
case (if not monosyllabic) how would you distinguish say sa.m.ba vs. sam.ba
= [sa~.ba] ???
You might use Vy and Vw for some of the diphthongs.
>Scheme 1: Straightforward
>Monofthongs spell'd as per IPA, except /i\ A/ = <y o>. Difthongs spell'd by
>their components, except a final /6/ as <a>, /ai\ ei\/ as <au eu> and /i@
>u@/ as <ie uo>. Nasality by syllable-final <m> or <n>.
Actually I like this. You might end up with "yy" as a word-- odd, but clear.
>
>Main problem here is not that it's boring, but that it clashes with my
>current consonant scheme. I would have room to change <y u> to <u w>, but
>that does not seem enticing.
??????
>
>Scheme 2: Digraphy
>/i i\ u/ = <ei eu ou> -- but why digraphs for /i u/??? eu is good, but I
>see I want to use it for a diphthong..........
>/e @ a A/ = <ea e a aa> maybe ee e a aa ???
>/@i @u i@ u@/ = <ii uu i u> --> ei eu ie ue
>/ei ei\ ai ai\ Ai Au/ = <eai eau ai au aai aau> --> eei eeu ai aeu aai aau
>/e6 i6 i\6 u6 o6/ = <ee ie ue uo oo> --> eea ia eua ua oa (your i\6=ue is
>odd)
>Nasality as before.
>
>This isn't too confusing, is this?
No worse than Dutch :-)))))
I hope I haven't added to the confusion.... and now me brain hurts :-))))