Re: Is this a realistic phonology?

On Sun, 7 Mar 1999, Nik Taylor wrote:

> > >> [p],[t],[k] are voiceless aspirated stops.  [k] loses its aspiration
> > after [s] and front vowels.  It becomes voiced b/w front vowels.
>
> Unreasonable.  It's unlikely (altho, maybe, possible) for only /k/ to
> lose aspiration after /s/ (that is, and not /p/ or /t/),
 Oops (sorry)... /sp/ and /st/ are not attested- only /sk/.

> but restricting it to front vowels is not.  Also, it's probably unlikely
> that only /k/ would be subject to that voicing rule, and, I think,
> impossible that voicing would be allophonic if voicing is phonemic for
> other stops (/p/-/b/ and /t/-/d/)
 Well, the /p/ and /t/ are always aspirated, and the /d/ is usually
interdental.  The /d/ is sometimes devoiced [t]]. IOW, I'm not sure if
it'sthe voicing that's making the difference, or a combination of things.
Wouldn't this make a difference?

> I assume you mean dental for /d/?  *Inter*dental refers to sounds like
> /D/ (as in bathe), interdental stops are unknown in the world's
> langauge.
Well, I meant interdental :? (That's why I use <d'> to represent /T/ as
opposed to <t'>.  That, and the fact that <t'> is an attested consonant
cluster /t?/ )  Is this bad?

> > >> [q] is a voiceless post-velar stop initially, except before front
> > vowels, where it is an ingressive post-velar /`q/.  Medially, it is a
> > voiced post-velar fricative /H/.
> By post-velar, do you mean uvular?  Again, frontness is unreasonable for
> phonation (whether it's ingressive, voiced, etc.).  It would be
> reasonable for /q/ to become /k/ before front vowels, but not /q'/.  The
> fricative allophone is reasonable.
Don't know what it is about the front vowels, but they change the way I
pronounce all the consonants.  At least here, they tend to be tenser and
higher pitched than the other vowels (especially when opening dipthongs,
which is where they usually occur).  I've also noticed that they never
preceed fricatives (except in /iS/).  Would this make a difference?

> > >> [m] [n] [g] are nasals. [g] is velar /N/.
>
> Unreasonable, I think, to have only two voiced phonemic stops but three
> nasals.  /N/ would probably tend to become denasalized, becoming /g/.
>
Well, /q/ is a stop 80% of the time initially.  Actually /N/ is rare, and
I was wondering if maybe I should drop it?  Well, no, really it's used
more vocalically and intervocally :?  Could it possibly be considered as
similar to vowels or approximates?

> > # Does the [bb],[z],[q] series seem unlikely to have evolved?
> Not by themselves, but with their prescence, it makes that imlosive
> allophone of /k/ less reasonable.
Yeah, but it's an allophone of /q/ (post-velar).  /k/ is never implosive.
I read about a language somewhere (sorry 'bout lack of refs) that had
implosive /`b/ as an allophone of /b/ when it preceeded /e/.  I thought
that might work with /q/ alone?

> > >> Length is phonemic in the dipthongs [ehi], [ehii], and rarely [a] and
> > [aa]
>
> Hmm, usually length is more thorough than that, frequently, but not
> always, every vowel will have long/short contrast.  Also, nitpick on
> your orthography: how would you distinguish between /ehi/ and /Vi/?
> It's rare for diphthongs to contrast length, and, I suspect, unheard of
> when other vowels don't.
Well, it's actually the /i/ whose length is extended rather than the whole
dipthong ( darned front vowel again).  There is another rarer one, /aE/
as opposed to /ae:/.  Length used to be rather extensive, but most of
those syllables have acquired a H-L pitch stress contour.  The occasional
/i:/, and very rare /e:/ and /a:/ are all that ever retain an even pitch
throughout the lengthening.

/e + h/ never happens (b/c no front vowels ever sound right in front of a
fricative other than /S/).

> > # Is it less than likely that [ehi] /Vi/ and [ai] /ai/ would regularly
> > contrast as minimal pairs as they do in this language?
>
> I see no problem with that.
Yeah, but I forgot to mention /aE/ also contrasting minimally with /ai/.
Is it too radical to have all three? (Or /oi/ with /oE/, which do also)?

> > How 'bout [ehi] and [oehi] /o@i/?
> No problem there, as long as having three vowels in a row is okay with
> you, go ahead.
Way common here :)

> I'd be interested in seeing more about the grammar of this language if
> you've worked that out.
>
Oehi! Possibly...

Thank you so much for your answers :)  As you see, many more questions
have come to be manifest!  Is it ever, ever over ....

skwoiajawoi (Thanks very much),
  yasmin.