Re: my phonology
| From: | Henrik Theiling <theiling@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Thursday, January 6, 2005, 3:53 |
|---|
Hi!
# 1 <salut_vous_autre@...> writes:
> I would like to show the phonology of my conlang to get commentaries
What's the design goal for this? To know it would help for making
comments.
I'll simply make some general, arbitrary comments for now.
> bilab labioden alveo postalveo pala velar uvular glot
>
> aspirated 2 2 2 0 0 2 0 0
> plosives
>
> unaspirated 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 1
> plosives
Postalveolar plosives seem to be innovative. They are distinguishable
from alveolar for me, but not easily. I'd go for retroflex to make
them more distinguishable, since there is nothing close to retroflex
in your inventory.
> fricatives 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 1
Few languages distinguish velar and uvular fricatives, although some
exist: e.g., natlang: Inuktitut/Kalaallisut, conlang: Qthen|gai (:-)).
There was a thread started by John, our former Lord of Instrumentality
(BTW: who is it now?), discussing velar vs. uvular fricatives.
> affricates 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 1
Glottal affricates. I like that, since a conlang sketch of mine (S6)
had it.
> nasals 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0
I cannot distinguish postalveolar nasals from alveolar ones. Again,
I'd go for retroflex instead. And velar vs. uvular nasal is somewhat
difficult, too. (Colloquial Kalaallisut seems to have that contrast,
however.)
>...
> ejec/implo 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 0
>...
> There are also the voiced and unvoiced linguo-labial plosives
:-)
Why no palatals? (I mean, I don't especially like their sound, but my
L1 contains a few, and Icelandic, which I like a lot, so why not?).
Again, I don't know your design goal, so these are just unfiltered
thoughts.
**Henrik
Reply