Re: new Unnamed Conlang
|From:||J. 'Mach' Wust <j_mach_wust@...>|
|Date:||Friday, September 17, 2004, 20:54|
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:39:35 -0400, John Cowan <jcowan@...> wrote:
>Mark J. Reed scripsit:
>> NB: I find it interesting that "nah" represents /n&/ while "na"
>> represents /na/ ("na na na na, hey hey-ey, good-bye"); yet "ah" in
>> most Meanwhile, "yeah" represents /y&/,
>This word is very variable not only betweeen, but within, dialects of
>English. For me it has a centralizing diphthong, [je@], that I don't
>otherwise have. I'd guess that whoever wrote this down first used a
>pronunciation similar to mine. The variant spelling "yah" probably
>represents something closer to [j&].
>All this paralinguistic stuff has very strange phonology and stranger
>orthography. I remember being quite surprised as a child to discvoer
>that written "tsk" meant a click, and that written "er" was just a
>non-rhotic spelling of [@], aka "uh".
I've read that  is common in Italian as in interjection. we use ['?m=?m=]
or ['?@?@] for negation and [?m='hm=] or [?@'h@] for affirmation even though
our words can't have [m=], [?], or stressed [@].
The first time I became conscious that interjections depend on language was
when I realized that in Germany, [i:] is an interjection of disgust, but of
amazement in Switzerland (we'd express disgust with [v\&_o:]).
Have people come up with special interjections for their conlangs?
j. 'mach' wust