Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: More thoughts on BrSc orthography & phonology

From:Raymond Brown <ray.brown@...>
Date:Tuesday, April 16, 2002, 18:54
At 2:03 pm -0600 15/4/02, Dirk Elzinga wrote:
[snip]
>> >>p = {pi, pu} b = {pE, pO} >>t = {ti, tu} d = {dE, dO} > >Do you mean 'd = {tE, tO} ?
Most certainly. [snip]
> >You're not including /a/?
I'd prefer to keep /a/, but I don't see a neat way round without also having [1]. [snip]
> >Personally, I don't think *I* would have a problem with <h> = {ni, >nu}. Alternatively, you could restrict the number of nasal-initial >syllables so that <m> = {mi, mu} and <n> = {ni, nu}, and not have >{mE, mO, nE, nO} at all. It does break up the symmetry of the system, >but you don't have to resort to numerals or unintuitive mappings.
I know - but I would like to keep the symmetry if possible. [snip]
> >But what if you compound a front stem with a back stem? If the >morphemes are disemous, then there can't be harmony across a compound >word boundary; each root will have to be marked separately for vowel >quality.
Yes, I have thought of: -i- = 1st morpheme front & 2nd morpheme front -e- = 1st morpheme front & 2nd morpheme back -u- = 1st morpheme back & 2nd morpheme back -o- = 1st morpheme back & 2nd morpheme front That would keep all the vowel symbols, except (so far) {a}, as "cements", but it would mean I have to rethink {je, jo} and {we, wo}. [snip]
> >Hmmm. The suggestion I'm about to give will probably conflict with >the 'brief' goal, but here it is. You can use {i,u} as prefixes to >indicate vowel quality, {-} to separate suffixes from stems and {=} >to separate clitics from hosts. {+} can be used to separate >compounds, with each root of the compound given its own {i} or {u}, >although I would probably prefer to not have orthographic compounds.
I'm trying, at the moment, avoiding need for (much) use of the shift key so I'm keeping away at present from {+}.
>The reason I see this as conficting with the goal of brevity is that >every morpheme will be introduced by a character which is not >pronounced. If morphemes are 3 or 4 letters, that's a 20% to 25% >increase in text; you may find that unacceptable. On the other hand, >a morpheme on its own (not affixed or cliticized) will still have to >indicate vowel quality in some way.
True - and I had considered prefixing i- and u- if a free morpheme occurred without any affixed functional morphemes.
>I also notice that you have no syllables containing /a/. If a >morpheme has no harmony prefix, could it default to /a/?
But that would either mean that, e.g. _p_ and _b_ become homophonous /pa/ or _p_ = /p1/ [snip]
> >I haven't been keeping up on the Lin grammatical notes, so I'm >probably suggesting things you've already decided not to consider.
Not at all - at this stage very little has been ruled out and nothing definitely ruled in. Ray. ====================== XRICTOC ANECTH ======================