Re: another new conlang

I'd call it a non-lingual bilabial lateral approximant. But I'd still have to
stretch the definition of 'lateral' to mean any sound made by obstructing the
air in the mouth and allowing it to escape around the obstruction.
And while we're on laterals, does any language have a lateral affricate [t_K] and
its palatalized equivalent [c_K_j]? I would like to think my conlang's unique
in its soundset, but I know the old rule of thumb--if you think of it for your
conlang, there's a natlang ten times worse.
 Rachel Klippenstein <estel_telcontar@...> wrote:--- Nik Taylor wrote: >
Rachel Klippenstein wrote:
> > Your language is really heavy on laterals... if
> you
> > wanted to be even more lateral-heavy, I think you
> > could even throw bilabial laterals. I know the
> IPA
> > chart says they're impossible, but I've always
> > wondered why, because I can make them way easier
> than
> > lots of the sounds actually in the IPA.
>
> It's a contradiction in terms. What you're doing
> can't be a bilabial
> lateral. Laterals require the use of the tongue by
> their definition,
> and bilabial is only lips. Linguolabial laterals
> are possible (altho,
> AFAIK, don't exist in any natlangs)
Okay. So how would you describe the sound I'm making
if I make my lips meet in the middle, and let air
escape out the sides - either for a fricative or an
approximant?

Rachel


______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day

Reply