Re: New/revised language: Phonology

On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:10:10 -0600, Andrew Chaney <adchaney@...> wrote:

>In order to avoid digraphs, I've ventured out of basic ascii. I hope
nothing
>horrible happens in the sending.
>
>stops:       p /p/   t /t/   c /k/
>fricatives:  f /f/   s (1)   x /T/
>liquids,etc: w /w/   j /j/   r (2)
>nasals:      m /m/   n (3)
If you don't confine yourself to ASCII, þ /T/ would look more
traditional ;)

>0. Most consonents have voiced allophones.
>1. /s/ or /S/
>2. r or l
>3. /n/ or /N/
>
>
>a /a/
>æ /& (i think)/
>i /i/
>î /I/
>å /e/
Why not use one and the same diacritic everywhere? /e/ could be {ê}.

>e /E/
>¦ /?/ english "aw" as in "awful"
I'm not sure this is displayed correctly with me, but again, why not {ô}?

>o /?/ english "oh" as in "Ho Ho Ho"
>u /u (i think)/ english "oo" as in "oops"
>ø /?/ english "ou" as in "could" not "ouch"
>y /y/
(with me, î is i-circ., ê is e-circ., ô is o-circ, and å is a-ring. So they
look when I view your message in Conlang Archives on the web, with encoding
set to Western/ISO-8859-1)


Basilius
-

Reply