Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: DECAL: Examples #2: Phonotactics

From:Tristan Mc Leay <conlang@...>
Date:Thursday, January 13, 2005, 11:18
Sai Emrys wrote:

>Same deal as last time. > >Q1: What are your allowable syllable structures? > >
Ancient Føtisk is essentially CCCVVCC, forbidding sequences of two or more fricatives. Other conditions exist but as I have a source for my words I haven't spent time thoroughly documenting them. All elements but a V are optional (long vowels take up both V spaces, and diphthongs don't seem to exist phonemically). Late Old Føtisk was clearly CCCVqC, where the q is either a consonant or a vowel. If q is a cononant, the following C is compulsory. If it's a vowel, it's optional. All onset consonants are optional. Long vowels are two elements, diphthongs don't seem to exist.
>Q2: Onset clusters? > >
What you would normally expect of a Germanic language. /xr xn xl/ are documented in both periods. /kw/ and /hw/ however are forbidden as they became /p/ and /f/, resp. in AF. (In borrowings in OF /kv/, however, appears.) Voicing must agree between elements, and at word boundaries, a de-voiced form is preferred.
>Q3: Codas? > >
Normal germanic stuff... Much as above.
>Q4: Any changes depending on place in word, etc.? > >
Well, inflected forms might cause some consontants to change
>Q5: Motivation / reasoning / goals behind this? > >
OF was meant to show some North Germanic influence, and its syllable structure was meant to reflect this. I think I got the timing wrong (it seems to've happened earlier in OF than in NG), but it reflects what English (Føtisk's closest relative) was doing at that time, so I decided to keep it. Otherwise, of course, it's just a simple evolution of the Germanic roots.
>Thanks, > > - Sai > >P.S. My understanding is that this doesn't come under the THEORY or OT >topic markers (since it is soliciting actual examples rather than >discussing-per-se *how* to choose). Am I wrong about this? If so, >please tell me what the boundaries are, since I'm probably unclear on >the topic. >
It's clearly not OT. I thinks it's probably best without any topic marker, 'cos I don't think there's any marker that fits it.