Re: Phoneme system for my still-unnamed "Language X"

Hello!

On 9/5/05, Henrik Theiling <theiling@...> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> "Julia \"Schnecki\" Simon" <helicula@...> writes:
> > I've been busy on the weekend, and I've actually achieved something.
> > Usually, the only thing I tend to achieve on a weekend is much REALLY
> > THOROUGH relaxing and, basically, doing-nothing, so this is a big
> > moment for me. ;-)
>
> But that's a great thing to do! :-)
Depends on the size of the heap of remaining
things-to-do-next-weekend-when-I-finally-have-time that you have to
face come Monday morning. ;-)

Well, on those weekends when I decide to do my thorough relaxing by
watching old Stargate and/or Firefly episodes, at least I can mentally
file that time under "linguistic research"...

[snip]

> > There are the following consonant phonemes:
> >
> > voiceless aspirated plosives p_h, t_h, c_h, k_h
> > voiceless ejectives p_>, t_>, c_>, k_>
> > voiced unaspirated plosives b, d, J\, g
> > approximants/glides w, r\, j, M\
>
> So no fricatives phonemes, but allophones only, that's fun.
Some months ago, when I started developing this phoneme system, I got
a little over-enthusiastic at first and ended up with an excessive
amount of consonant phonemes (or at least I considered it excessive).
So I decided to throw out at least half of these phonemes (actually, I
threw out entire manners of articulation and demoted others from
phoneme to allophone status) and invent some creative rules for
allophones instead...

> > Furthermore, there are two archiphonemes (nasal, /N/, and lateral,
> > /L/) that are realized as [m], [n], [J], [N] resp. [l_w], [l], [L],
> > [L\] depending on their surroundings.
>
> The large variation of liquid allophones reminds me of S11.  I have
> [w], [l], and [5]/[L] and am currently thinking about [i].
>
> I don't know when exactly I could have [i], but maybe after [a] and
> maybe [u] and before [k] and maybe before [p].
>
>   /alka/ > [ai)ka]
>   /alpa/ > [ai)pa]
>
> Currently, the first is [au)ka] and the second is [alpa].
Hmm... /L/ > [i] near [k] and/or [p] reminds me of the way Latin /l/
is treated in Italian: pluvia : piove (?), clavis : chiave, and so
on...

> We'll see.  My mother tongue has /l/ > [I] in 'welche' [vEI)C@] and
> 'solche' [zOI)C@] and many Bavarian and Austrian dialects seem to have
> it quite systematically (often accompanied with vowel +rounding and
> sometimes +backing).
Interesting! I wish I had some phonetics equipment here; then I could
measure my own /l/s... I'm sure I don't pronounce /l/ as [I] anywhere,
but I'd really like to know how close to [L] my /l/s get in words like
_welche_ (or, generally, in the vicinity of consonants that encourage
palatalization). :-)

> > 2. Sandhi rules
> >...
>
> !!
>
> Quite complex! :-) Will you have a more phonemic or a phonetic
> writing?  With those sandhi, phonemic with be a paint in the bottom to
> read. :-)
For the time being, I'll probably have to write everything twice: once
phonemically, so I don't accidentally invent a word that totally
violates some phonetic rule; and once phonetically, so I can actually
pronounce it.

As for later, when I know the sandhi rules by heart... well, who
knows?

> Nice!
Thank you! :-)

Regards,
Julia

--
   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)