Is this a realistic phonology?
|From:||Sahla Autumn Yasmin Ajinqwai <wp@...>|
|Date:||Sunday, March 7, 1999, 4:05|
I have a lang almost ready for wholesale vocab construction, but don't
wanna have to be stuck with a whole lot of useless vocab because the
phonology is unnatural. I basically was wondering if this system is
!-fairly normal, @-unusual but possible, #-impossible but modifyable,
$-utter crap ??? Ever so grateful for any help :)
There are 27 consonants:
>> [p],[t],[k] are voiceless aspirated stops. [k] loses its aspirationafter [s] and front vowels. It becomes voiced b/w front vowels.
>> [b],[d] are voiced stops. [d] is interdental /d[/, where [t] isalveolar.
>> [q] is a voiceless post-velar stop initially, except before frontvowels, where it is an ingressive post-velar /`q/. Medially, it is a
voiced post-velar fricative /H/.
>> [f] [s] [h] [fw] [d'] [x] are fricatives /f/, /s/, /h/, /F/ (voicelessbilabial), /T/ (voiceless interdental), /S/ (voiceless palatal)
>> [c] [j] are affricates. [c] is /tS/, but [j] can be /d3/ or /3/ (freevariation).
>> [m] [n] [g] are nasals. [g] is velar /N/.
>> [w] [l] [y] are liquids. (Is that the right word?)
>> [bb] is an implosive bilabial stop /`b/.
>> [z] is a voiceless alveolar click /t!/ (occasionally nasalized in lazyspeech). It is an implosive alveolar stop /`d/ in some traditional
>> [b'] is a voiced bilabial trill /B/.
>> [ql] is a post-velar affricate /qR/.
>> ['] is the glottal stop [?].
! Is this more points of articulation than a natural language could have?
@ Are there too many fricatives?
# Does the [bb],[z],[q] series seem unlikely to have evolved?
$ Anything else?
There are 7 vowels:
[e]=/E/ [eh]=/V/ [o] [r]=/R/
>> Rhoticisation [V +r] is phonemic except for [u] and [r].
>> Tone (high,low) is phonemic except for [o] and [r].
>> Length is phonemic in the dipthongs [ehi], [ehii], and rarely [a] and[aa]
! Is it naive to call [r] a vowel? There is no consonant form in the
@ About 15% of content words and 30% of "grammar" words so far use the
high tone stress. Shouldn't this be radically increased?
# Is it less than likely that [ehi] /Vi/ and [ai] /ai/ would regularly
contrast as minimal pairs as they do in this language? How 'bout [ehi]
and [oehi] /o@i/?
$ Is it less than likely that [r] /R/, [ehr] /VR/, and [ar] /aR/ can all
be found in the same language as separate sounds? (although [ehr] amd [ar]
never contrast minimally)
% Anything else?
Hey, sorry for the long winds. Thanks :)