Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: another newbie

From:David Barrow <davidab@...>
Date:Monday, November 25, 2002, 0:22
Jeff Jones wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 15:47:40 -0500, David Barrow <davidab@...> > wrote: > > >Hi all > > Welcome to the list. >
Thank you
> > >I'm another newbie. My interest veers more towards modifying languages > >languages rather than constructing them from scratch. I call them what > >if... languages in the sense of what would happen or have happened if > >certain changes to the languages happen in the future,or had or hadn't > >happened in the past, for example an English that hadn't lost most of > >its inflexions and had kept grammatical gender or an English without > >Norse, Norman, French, Latin influence, but instead had kept the > >original Anglo-Saxon vocabulary but had still undergone the sound > >changes modern English went through (such as gws) Or inflected languages > >such as Spanish, French, German with their inflexions reduced to a level > >like that of English or even further > > > >Anyone else interested in modified languages? I speak English and > >Spanish so my interest centres mainly around these two > > There are quite a few! You'll probably be hearing from some others very > shortly. I mostly do languages from scratch, but have a Latin-derived > conlang (Rubaga) that I work on on occasion, and also speak English and > Spanish less badly than other natlangs, so feel free to show us.
Is it on a website?
> > >Looking at the SAMPA page: > > > >BrE has /e/ in pet AmE has /E/, but then the American page uses the same > >/e/ for raise does that mean Americans pronounce raid the same way I > >pronounce red? Or has someone made a mistake? > > I'm afraid someone has made a *mess*. The presentation there mostly omits > the []'s and //'s, so that they have to be determined from context. The > []'s enclose _phonetic_ notations, giving a fairly exact pronunciation, > while //'s enclose _phonemic_ notations, the distinctions for a given > language or dialect. Phonemic symbols can be pretty arbitrary, but > generally, the simplest symbol that *suggests* the pronunciation is used. > This means that phonemic symbols can't be compared across dialects. >
would it be best to represent e in words like pet with /E/ for both standard English and American and words like raise would have /eI/ (English) and /e/ American another snip David Barrow