Sahla Autumn Yasmin Ajinqwai <wp@...> wrote:
>
> Hi :)
> 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 :)
You seem to have mixed up [phonetic brackets] and /phonological
slashes/ -- or rather you seem to put *orthographical* (spelling)
notation in brackets, in which case it would perhaps be better to use
{braces} (linguists traditionally use <angles>, but on the internet
many people prefer braces, for reasons that should be obvious), OTOH
you are consistent with your usage, in which case it IMO is OK, but
perhaps it would need explanation.
> There are 27 consonants:
> >> [p],[t],[k] are voiceless aspirated stops. [k] loses its
aspiration
> after [s] and front vowels. It becomes voiced b/w front vowels.
It would be realistic if *all* of /ptk/ lose their aspiration after
/s/. That front vowels alone should have a voicing effect looks not
very realistic IMHO. That /k/ would become voiced in certain contexts
in a lang that has no /g/ phoneme is very realistic, but the context
itself is unrealistic; voicing between vowels or between voiced sounds
generally would be more realistic.
> >> [b],[d] are voiced stops. [d] is interdental /d[/, where [t] is
> alveolar.
This difference between /t/ and /d/ in point of articulation isn't
very realistic, unless what you mean is that /d/ is realized as an
(inter)dental *fricative*.
>
> >> [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/.
As for voicing in certain context the same applies as for /k/.
Something is fishy with your voiced post-velar fricative symbol.
According to ASCII-IPA "standard"
<http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Evan_Kirshenbaum/IPA/faq.html>
/H/ should denote a voiceless pharyngeal fricative. What you are after
is either /Q"/--which for some reason is mistyped in the ASCII-IPA
spec itself!--or /H~/.
>
> >> [f] [s] [h] [fw] [d'] [x] are fricatives /f/, /s/, /h/, /F/
(voiceless
> bilabial), /T/ (voiceless interdental), /S/ (voiceless palatal)
> respectively.
Since you base your symbol for a voiceless interdental fricative on
{d} I guess I was right in assuming you mean /d/ itself to be
fricative -- in which case its correct ASCI-IPA notation is /D/.
>
> >> [c] [j] are affricates. [c] is /tS/, but [j] can be /d3/ or /3/
(free
> variation).
I like that!
> >> [m] [n] [g] are nasals. [g] is velar /N/.
Like that even more! {g} is /N/ in Funus (my lang) too.
>
> >> [w] [l] [y] are liquids. (Is that the right word?)
Yep!
>
> >> [bb] is an implosive bilabial stop /`b/.
> >> [z] is a voiceless alveolar click /t!/ (occasionally nasalized in
lazy
> speech). It is an implosive alveolar stop /`d/ in some traditional
> dialects.
>
> >> [b'] is a voiced bilabial trill /B/.
> >> [ql] is a post-velar affricate /qR/.
> >> ['] is the glottal stop [?].
>
> Main questions:
> ! Is this more points of articulation than a natural language could
have?
No.
> @ Are there too many fricatives?
No.
> # Does the [bb],[z],[q] series seem unlikely to have evolved?
No, except that an alveolar *ejective* wd perhaps be more realistic
than a click, in the context.
> $ Anything else?
>
> There are 7 vowels:
> [i] [u]
> [e]=/E/ [eh]=/V/ [o] [r]=/R/
> [a]
> >> 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]
>
> Main questions:
> ! Is it naive to call [r] a vowel? There is no consonant form in
the language.
No.
> @ About 15% of content words and 30% of "grammar" words so far use the
> high tone stress. Shouldn't this be radically increased?
The restrictions on occurance of tone distinction on certain vowel
phonemes looks unrealistic--a restriction against tone distinction in
closed syllables would be an example of something more realistic. It
is perhaps also a bit unrealistic that tone distinction would occur
more frequently on grammar words, unless it is also the case that it
occurs more often on *short* (monosyllabic) words. Most natlangs with
tone distinctions employ them fairly universally accross the
vocabulary. Swedish is exceptional in that tone carries a low
functional load for distinguishing "dictionary forms"; it has a much
higher load when it comes to distinguish inflected forms, however (Eg
"/anden" from "and" and "\anden" from "ande".
> # 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/?
The latter would be more realistic, yes.
> $ 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)
Looks OK, tho it might disturb speakers of non-rhotic Englishes...
> % Anything else?
Since you doesn't seem to use the letter {v}, why not use it instead
of the {eh} digraph?
>
> Hey, sorry for the long winds. Thanks :)
No problem, i got plenty of time for once!
> Love,
> yasmin.
>
/BP
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com