Re: Here we go loup-garou

On 7/9/07, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> wrote:
> or something like that.  I'm reëntering the conlang fray.
>
> Target: Okaikiar
> Mission: Beautify.
>
> Okaikiar, as she is right now, I find aesthetically displeasing.  It's all
> in the eye and ear of the beholder, of course, but I just don't like the
> phonology.  As an example, here's the paternoster:
>
> Uza zi dinkmarkurd or                 'uz& zi dink'mar\kUr\d Or\
> Limzar don nudir                        'limza\r don nu'dir\
> Markiar don maid                       mar\'kiar\ don ma'id
> M'ziar don ed                             m@'ziar don Ed
> Maizim ram dinkmarkurd             ma'jizim r&m diNk'mar\kur\d
> Lokand m'lor zøn zyrkom zi rork  'lok&nd m@'lOr\ z2n 'zyr\kom zi rOr\k
> Uz lymkiard zi dolk                     uz lym'kiar\d zi dolk
> Ram zø lymkard zi dolkraz.         r\&m z2 'lymkar\d zi 'dolkr\&z
> Uz kondziark zim lolz zik             uz kond'ziar\k zim lolz zik
> L'ro m'kun zim lolz                       l@'ro m@'kun zim lolz
> Ziin dan ømkraz markiard             zi'in d&n '2mkr&z mar\'kiar\d
> Uz k'ndard                                   uz k@n'dar\d
> Uz køkald                                   uz 'k2kald
> Ruzurd.                                       'r\uzur\d
>
> So I'm revisiting the phonology in an attempt to get a new one that is still
> consistent with the established proper names and that still works with the
> script.  Suggestions welcome.  Do you all find the above as
> unsightly/harsh/hard on the ears as I do?   If so, what do you think would
> improve it?
I dunno---I like the look and sound of it.

> Known proper names: Dankar ['d&Nka`r\], Zan [z&n], Tysor ['tajsO`r\], Ral
> [r&l], M'kei [m@'kej].
> Vowels: & aj a`r\ ej o`r\
> Consonants: d k l m n N r\ s t z
>
> Since we have both [d] and [t], chances are that since we have [k], we also
> have [g].   The existence of [m] makes the existence of other bilabials
> probable but not necessary.   I find it quite probable that the [N] is an
> allophone of /n/ occurring before velars.
It is often the case that languages with a voicing distinction in the
obstruents will still fail to have /g/ as a counterpart to /k/, so the
lack of /g/ should be okay. By the same token, you can miss /p/ but
still have /b/. (This has to do with the aerodynamics of voicing.)

> The script as-is supports only 8 syllable onsets and 8 nuclei, but up to 64
> codas, and it can be readily extended to support as many onsets as codas.
It would seem then that the script doesn't capture all of the
available distinctions. I count 9 consonants (excluding /N/ as
allophonic) and 11 vowels (in the transcription of the Pater Noster).
Is this right?

Dirk

Replies