Re: new Unnamed Conlang

Quoting Tamas Racsko <tracsko@...>:

> On 19 Sep 2004 Andreas Johansson <andjo@FRE...> wrote:
>
> > I believe I've indicated a lack of faith in the utility of such
> > specifications at all.
>
>   In my interpretation, this issue is about to help Rodlox to find
> a correct phonetical representation for his/her specifications.
> Unfortunately, we got involved with each other's argumentation
> instead.
Indeed. We're basically wasting listspace here.

Still, a couple of points I'd like to address.

> > The question, however, was whether the voiceless uvular fricative
> > occurs in more well-known languages, which it certainly does.
>
>   For me, this is not exactly the question.  The question is what
> extent of the populace is aware of a given phonetical
> characteristic.  In this respect, some features of well-known
> languages can be less evident than other features of less-known
> languages.
But someone _did_ ask whether [X] occurs in some more well-known language. If
the answer to that is of little help it doesn't mean it's not still the answer.

> > Some books give [X] as the value of /x/ after back vowels in
> > Modern Standard High German
>
>   I do not bring into question of your information of standard High
> German [X], but popular works as Duden's Aussprachewörterbuch do
> not mention this feature.  My Ausprachewörterbuch (3rd edition,
> 1990) conveys |ach!| as [ax] and not [aX] despite of the fact that
> it gives detailed allophone inventory for other phonemes, e.g.
> enumerates four representations of syllable-initial /r/.
>
>   Therefore a German example for [X] could be informative of
> experts of High German phonology, but it could be misleading for
> others, e.g. for those who are informed from Duden.
Again, the purpose of giving that particular information wasn't to help anyone
understand what [X] is, only pointing out that it does, infact, occur in better
known languages.

> > I originally asked specifically about _Latin_ orthographies, but
> > good to know anyway.
>
>   I do not want to contradict you but I do not remember explicit
> narrowing for Latin script. After browsing postings I found still
> general questions as e.g. 18/09: "Since you appear to be familiar
> with EEan languages, do you know any that uses the digraphs 'sy'
> and 'zy'?"
I guess the "Latin" may have been lost in a rewrite. I distinctly recall typing
it down.

                                                           Andreas