Re: Phoneme system for my still-unnamed "Language X"
|From:||Julia "Schnecki" Simon <helicula@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, September 14, 2005, 13:15|
On 9/11/05, John Vertical <johnvertical@...> wrote:
> Well *there's* a well-thought phonology!
Thank you! :-)
(And it better be well thought... I spent enough time on it, after
all... wasted my youth and everything... grumble grumble... ;)
> I'll say it's disturbingly regular
> with respect to POA, tho ... if only you could add dental vowels, it'd
> collapse into a regular tesseract I guess. ;) But meanwhile the ejective ->
> nasal+approximant rule is quite nifty. Is it ANADEW or a wild innovation?
That's the one I invented out of thin air because I wanted something
"weird", i.e. something I'd never seen another language do before. So
I guess it falls under "wild innovation" (though, if it does turn out
to be ANADEW, I'd be really interested in learning more about the
language in question).
> >There are no semivowels or non-syllabic vowels. (There are a few
> >glides, but they're listed below under "Consonants".)
> So what IS the difference between a semivowel and a glide? The way they are
> used in the phonology?
Um... I guess that's it. ;-)
(I really need to work on the finer points of terminology.)
> >2.2.2. Consonant gradation
> >(d) A plosive-lateral or ejective-lateral sequence at the onset of an
> > open syllable corresponds to a voiced plosive with lateral release
> > at the onset of a closed syllable (e.g. [p_hl_w] : [b_l],
> > [p_>l_w] : [b_l], [bl_w] : [b_l]). (That is, if I can actually
> > learn to pronounce those lateral-release stops. ;)
> I'm fairly sure [b_l] is impossible... unless you can twist your lower lip
> to a "W" shape? But given that you use [l_w] for a labial lateral in the
> first place, maybe [bd_l)] or perhaps even [d_l_w] would be a good phone
Hmm... [d_l_w] is a nice twist. :-) I'll keep practicing lateral
release, and if I can learn how to do it, I may use [d_l_w] instead of
[b_l]; if not, I'll have to rethink my something-plus-lateral clusters
> >I hope I managed to weed out all the
> >inconsistencies that had crept in over the weeks...
> Hate to bring the bad news, but I think I spotted one:
> >Some more assimilation in consonant clusters:
> >(a) A sequence consisting of an ejective and an aspirated plosive (in
> > either order) changes into a voiced plosive followed by a voiced
> > fricative (e.g. /p_>k_h/ and /p_hk_>/ -> [bG];
> > /p_hp_>/ -> [bv] or [bB]).
> >(c) An aspirated plosive changes into a fricative if followed by
> > another plosive or by an ejective (e.g.
> > /p_hk_h/ -> [fk_h] or [p\k_h], /p_hg/ -> [vg] or [Bg]).
> >(d) An ejective changes into a voiced plosive if followed by another
> > ejective or by a plosive (e.g. /p_>k_h/ -> [bk_h]). (I'm not sure
> > yet how to handle voicedness assimilation here...)
> Note how you list *two* realizations [bG bk_h] for the same cluster
<muffled cursing> Oops. Thanks for noticing.
> Of course, if you reversed rule (c) to apply to aspirates *preceded* by
> another stop, it'd work again. But currently, rule (a) seems to contradict
> rules (b) and (c).
Or I could leave rule (a) as it is and change the other two so that
they only apply to clusters that aren't aspirated plosive + ejective
(in that order). And while I'm at it, I may as well tackle that
voicedness assimilation issue in rule (d)... so, the new rules are
(c') An aspirated plosive changes into a fricative if followed by
another plosive (e.g. /p_hk_h/ -> [fk_h] or [p\k_h],
/p_hg/ -> [vg] or [Bg]).
(d') An ejective changes into a voiced plosive if followed by a voiced
plosive (e.g. /p_>g/ -> [bg].
(e') Two consecutive ejectives change into voiced plosives (e.g.
/p_>g/ -> [bk_h], /p_>k_>/ -> [bg]).
How's that? I hope I didn't just accidentally introduce any new
Julia Simon (Schnecki) -- Sprachen-Freak vom Dienst
_@" schnecki AT iki DOT fi / helicula AT gmail DOT com "@_
si hortum in bybliotheca habes, deerit nihil
(M. Tullius Cicero)