Re: DECAL: Examples #1: Phonetic inventory examples & motivations

Sai Emrys wrote:

>First off: phonetic / phonemic inventory.
>
Tristan McLeay, conlang@thecartographers.net, no URL atm.

>Q1: What is your *phonemic* inventory? I.e., what are all of the
>discriminated phonemes in your conlang(s). (IPA / CXS / X-SAMPA)
>
Ancient Føtisk (AF):

i i: y  y:       u u:
e e: 2  2:       o o:
a a: &\ &\: A A: Q Q:   (note that /a a:/ are usually denoted /& &:/)

p b t d k g
f v s   x               (I sometimes write /h/ for /x/, but a different
  m   n                  phoneme is not intended)

l r w j dZ

Old Føtisk (OF) is as AF but lacks /&\~&\:/, /A~A:/ and /w/, but also
shows what is probably a marginal phoneme /tS/ by the end of the period.

Note that the boundary between the pairs /b~v/, /f~v/ and /w~v/ in AF
and early OF appear weak. (Some authors consider /d/ in this group too,
but most cases of /d~v/ uncertainty can be attributed to regularisation
rather than process of phonology.) No surprise considering that [D] and
[G] disappeared, leaving /v/ as the only voiced fricative in the
language. Eventually /w~v/ collapsed (to /v/), relatively strengthening
the phoneme during the OF period.

>Q2: What are the allophones? I.e., for each phoneme, what are the
>"normal" variants that don't change meaning?
>
Not well established. /x/ seems to have had the allophone [h] during
both periods. /n/ probably pronounced [N] before velars. In the earliest
period, there is some evidence that /Q:/ was a diphthong in some
contexts, and [T], [D] and [k_w] may have been used word-initially as
allophones of /f/, /v/ and /p/ respectively.* Towards the end of the
period, /r/ had probably taken on a more vocalised quality, something
like an English-style approximate. The earliest quality of /dZ/ is
unknown, except that it was voiced, but it devoiced in unvoiced
contexts; eventually, at least, it clearly contained the sibilent
element as -gjes is known to be pronouced [tS] (< ?[tSs]). It derives
from palatised *gg and *jj.

* Some cases of /f/, /v/ and /p/ originate from earlier /T/, /d/ [D],
/k_w/. Whereas word-internally the runes used for the latter phonemes
were quick to change to the normal runes, word-initially there was some
delay and wavering. This may have reflected pronunciation or just
orthographical habits.

>Q2b: If you have any, what are the connotations / implications of the
>different allophones? E.g., do you use them for different dialects,
>registers, "accents", etc.?
>
No.

>Q3: How do your choices for the above reflect the goals of your
>language? E.g., if it's an auxlang [here!?], it's probably motivated
>by having common, strongly "universal" common-use phonetics to
>maximize learnability. So, for whatever your goals are for the
>conlang, how do they apply to the choices you made for phonetics /
>phonology?
>
Ancient and Old Føtisk are lostlangs---conlangs that appear to be real
languages but that're unheard of. In this particular case, the two
lostlangs are also meant to be extinct Germanic languages, known only
through writings (but it was a reasonably well-written language). Hence,
the uncertainty of the phonemes' exact values---the phonetics of the
languages---directly contributes to the feel of the language. The two
languages form part of a quadruplet: Middle Føtisk was a poorly
documented decendent of Old Føtisk and ultimately saw the eventual
demise of the language family, whereas Modern Føtisk represents a
revival of/conlang based on the language (either by me or decendents of
Føts,* I haven't decided). These latter two haven't been developed well
enough to say anything about them.

* in the 200 years since the end, Føts have been so well-integrated into
their surrounding cultures that no ethnic Føts remain. A pity.

--
Tristan.