Re: Here we go loup-garou

Mark J. Reed 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,
Oh too true.

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
A little translation/interlinear would be helpful, although I think I've
figuried it out. Mostly.
An inconsistency? "maid" [ma'id], but "maizim" [ma'jizim]-- whence the [j]?
More info on word structure and phonotactics needed.........
What's with all the /r/s and /z/s? And where do /2/, /E/ and /y/ come from,
they're not in your inventory. Odd that the text doesn't contain a single
/s/.
<snark>Perhaps this should be recited by a Brit, thus replacing some of the
/r/s with [@] glides or length.</snark> (BIG :-))) just in case) -- but the
language does seem too r-ful for my taste.
>
> 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?
>
> 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
"y" for [aj] is very Americano, no? :-)))
I first assumed this was the total inventory; clearly it isn't.
Do "a`r\" et al. represent retroflexed vowels? (something I've always meant
to play with but haven't yet.....) If so, perhaps they could be represented
with a diacritic e.g."â" etc.??? thus eliminating lots of those r's from the
written form.
Is "ma- ~m'-" a prefix or classifier of some sort? What if anything governs
0 vowel? "k'ndard" vs. "køkald"??
>
> 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.
As Dirk pointed out, maybe/yes to /g/, /b/, no /p/ is OK. [N] = /n/ OK,
though I happen to like phonemic /N/, in all positions. Perhaps *g could
have shifted > /N/?, and perhaps *b could have shifted to /v ~B ~w/ (lack of
glides disturbs me for some reason). Maybe some of the /z/s are < *j?
>
> 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's really an interesting problem. More research is needed.

Replies