OFF : Clusters & Gibberish (was : vowel scheme for new language)

Dans un courrier dat=E9 du 22/05/99 02:08:13  , Pablo a =E9crit :

> > I find it interesting that Pablo restricted "yu" without known reason.
>  >
> =20
>  I really don't have a clue why I did it -- but now=20
>  it's allowed anyway. In an early stage of the language
>  I found that I was also unconsciously avoiding some
>  other things, particularly initial fricative + stop
>  clusters, except s- + stop, which was undoubtedly
>  English influence.
see how English spoils our Latin genius ;-)

 Nowadays I have Drasel=E9q words like
>  _fqen_, _ft=F2g_, _thkelsen_, _thp=E0sen_, etc. (voiced
>  fricatives are not allowed in this case). Now _fqen_
>  is not very "flowing" as I said I liked -- but it's
>  there.
I can understand what you feel with pleasing with these clusters : my early=20
words were a lot of tk_, tp_, pt_, kt_, tsh_, tm_, km_ , tl_ , tn_ initials =
:
kta : get
kte : chief
tma : cut
tpun : stone
tla : speak
tli : write
tka : fall
tnu : think
tshun : destroy
there were a lot of glottal stops [?] everywhere. -t + t- =3D dental stop an=
d=20
-k + k- =3D velar stop. I can pronounce that phonology very easily and it is=20
enthralling. example of sentence (I was around 14) :
Ak tnu?u tka ?an tpun pa?an kte tli?i tmu ?at.
I think that you fall (on) stone when the chief writes that he eats.
Subclause was started by doubling the vowel of the verb with glottal stop=20
inbetween :
tnu ?ak : I think > ak tnu?u ... : I think that ...
Something other conlangers use a lot : "case" by word order :
subject was after the verb when there was no direct object :
tka ?ak : I fall.
Indirect object was after subject : tka ?ak tpun : I fall on stone.
ak (shu?un) tka ?at tpun : I (make) him fall on stone.
It was not ergative, though :
tma ?ak : I cut.
ak tma mu : I cut meat.
tma ?a mu : the meat is cut.
tpun ?a tka : the stone is fallen on

I still find all this appealing. Hmm... maybe I should make something out of=20
it again :)

Mathias