Re: Your Help Appreciated

Great feedback, folks! I really, *really* appreciate all this. Another
round-up of responses.

FFlores spake, saying:

>
> <sh> = /S/
> <j> = /j/ as in "yet" or /dZ/ as in "jet"?
> <ch> = /tS/
> <zh> = /Z/
> <ng> = /N/
> <kh> if it's like German or Scots <ch>, then /x/.
>
> If <r> is trilled and <rh> is not, what is it? A flap, as in
> Spanish and Japanese? An approximant as in English?
More like the approximant as in English. I can't seem to pronounce that
Japanese flap...the "ry" sound completely escapes me.

> What is <wh>?
Again, falling into the English orthographic trap. It should actually be a
<hw> sound, like "white" and "what".

> For <kw> and <gw>, it may be that they are really pairs, /k/ or /g/
> + /w/, or labialized stops (that's e.g. /k/ with rounded lips), or
> labiovelar stops (e.g. /k/ and /p/ pronounced at the same time).
I was thinking of the labialized stop, voiced and unvoiced.

>> Yes, a non-nasal /m/ where the lips do not actually touch.
>
>
> Then that's /B/, in IPA "beta": a voiced bilabial fricative.
Isn't that more of a Bronx cheer, or have I classified the Bronx cheer
incorrectly?

> Your system is a bit asymmetric -- you have tense and lax versions
> of /i/-/I/, /u/-/U/, /e/-/E/, but not /o/-*/O/. Not a problem, I
> guess -- you can make */O/ > /a/ in the past stages of the lang,
> or something like that.
Yeah, I did notice the asymmetry -- the /O/ sound is what, exactly?

Then Carlos Eugenio Thompson (EDC) spake, saying:

> Don't worry, we are all learning.
By leaps and bounds, in my case.

> Then, kh is /x/, gh is /G/ in SAMPA, rh is either /4/ if flaped (Spanish or
> Japanese) or /r\/ if approximant (English), and vh seams to be /B/.  I guess
> ng is /N/ and I'm not sure about kw and gw (are they /kw/ and /gw/?)
See above; yes, I believe "vh" is /B/.

> In SAMPA:
> í is /i/
> i us /I/
> é is /e/ (no diphthong, like /ej/?)
> e is /E/
> a is /&/ (in "cat"), I guess some diacritic is missing...
> a is /a/ (in "father")
> u is /V/ *
> o is /o/
> ü is /U/ *
> ú is /u/
>
> * (or am I having these values wrong?)
That seems to jibe with my (limited) understanding (that is the last
self-deprecating comment, I promise).

> I have problems with sillable final /kw/ or /gw/, for me there is a tendency
> to pronounce them as /ku/ and /gu/, then probably kw is something else:
> labialized k: /k_w/ or double articulated: labiovelar stop /kp)/?
Labialized, as I stated above.

>> So, to try and bring us back to my original request, what I'm looking for
>> are suggestions for sound changes that will make my words sound more like:
>>
>> 1. Germannic
>> 2. Gaelic
>> 3. Latin
>> 4. Ancient Greek
>> 5. Balto-Slavic
>>
>> Any suggestions?
>>
> Well, I'm not experte in Indoeuropean but some of the changes that happened
> from PIE were.
>
> The German shift: voiceless plosives became fricatives: /p/ > /f/, /t/ >
> /T/, /k/ > /x/.  Some of those changes evolved further into the different
> Germanic languages, but this explains contrast like _father_ vs. _pater_.
>
> Velolabial sounds became velar in Romance languages: /pk)/ > /kw/ > /k/.
Thanks -- some of these changes (in the initial consonants) I have in my
copy of the American Heritage Dictionary's appendices.

Then Nik Taylor spake, saying:

>> Your system is a bit asymmetric -- you have tense and lax versions
>> of /i/-/I/, /u/-/U/, /e/-/E/, but not /o/-*/O/.
>
> Many dialects of English are like that.
>
> Actually, for the pure vowels, that seems to be almost a complete copy
> of English.  The diphthongs are quite distinct, however.
Now that you say it, I see it -- yes, they are almost a complete copy of
English. Hmm. Well, that can be changed, and certainly will once I start
developing the various branches of the tree.

Then Muke Tever spake, saying:

>> From:    John Mietus <sirchuck@...>
>
> You might be looking for a chart something like this one:
> http://members.xoom.com/piestudies/iephon.htm
>
> Then again, you might not be, but that's what comes to mind.
Thanks much -- I'll give it a look.

And finally, FFlores spake, saying:

> John Mietus <sirchuck@...> wrote:
>
>> The syllable structure is essentially:
>> (C)V(M)(E)
>> Certain ending combinations are still not possible (e.g. /sng/, /mgw/) --
>> for the most part, if it¹s allowed in English or Proto-Indo-European, it¹s
>> allowed in Palaged.
>
>
> You might choose to wait until fixing the syllable structure,
> whose description seems quite vague -- not a critique, since
> most of us basically put it aside, only having a general idea,
> until we get the feel for what the language considers legal
> or illegal; and only then (maybe) we get to the task of looking
> at words and at our intuition in order to write down a syllable
> structure formula. Which boils down to say that you don't need
> (in this list) to present a new language as if you had done a
> long study about it. We're here to listen, not to evaluate. :)
Sure -- I understand. I tried to simplify my description, and I probably
shouldn't have.

Basically, syllables could either be:

The syllable structure is essentially:
    (C)V(E)

Where  E = d, t, k, T, g, D, p, f, S, b, dZ, z, tS, Z, kw, x, gw, v, N

or

(C)VM(E)
Where M = r, n, m, l, s
And E = d, t, k, T, g, D, p, f, S, b, dZ, z, tS, Z.

I'm pretty sure I've restricted the ME combinations to the same points of
articulation -- I don't think there are any instances where you get, for
instance, an <mS> combination. And yes, the <nk> combination is not intended
to be pronounced /Nk/ but as /nk/.

Again, thank you all so much. I'm learning so much and having a blast doing
it, which is the whole point, right?

John