Re: CHAT: More enter-bringings

"Jesse S. Bangs" wrote:
>
> Well, Robert got a warm enough welcome, so I figured I'd de-lurk and
> introduce myself as well.  I actually popped on and off was on this list
> a few years ago, but I had to leave far too soon--this time I'll stick
> around (I promise).  Name's Jesse, 17 years old, and my main conlang is
> Yivríndil ("Yivrindil" with an acute accent on the second 'i', since the
> diacritics don't always go through the mail), if perchance anyone
> remembers me.  I've been conlanging for quite a while, and Yivrindil is
> actually very complete--there's a pretty exhaustive grammar available for
> anyone that wants to write me and ask for it.  However, I have several
> other half-done projects that I've worked on, like related languages,
> diachronic stuff for Yivrindil, and I recently started with Pazri, a
> fictional IE lang.
>
Hey, Jesse. The diacritics did to through, at least in my case. A few
years ago? Is this one of those 10 year old lists with like 6000
members, but only 3 or 4 post regularly? I'm signed up to one of those.
It's like I'm watching a rather dry conversation between a few people
who don't really like eachother.

> Since phonology's the topic of the day, I think I'll start with a problem
> that's been bothering me lately.  I've traditionally described
> Y(ivríndil) phonology with seven phonemes: /i I e I a o u/, with
> dipthongs /ai oi ui ao/.  (I'm using IPA symbols throughout since the
> orthography is naturalistic and somewhat arbitrary, and might be
> misleading--and I don't feel like explaining it in detail right now.)
> However, I've recently thought about re-describing the system to
> eliminate /i/ and /e/ as distinctive phonemes with a generative approach.
>
Are you saying you'd combine the two, or get rid of them entirely? I'm
not clear on this.

> Here's the main arguments: /i/ and /e/ occur in complementary
> distribution with the dipthongs /ai oi ui/ and share some
> properties--they're all rare in noun nuclei, but are the normal results
> of a "vowel lengthening" mutation required in some morphological
> processes.  For example: ['aras]/[ar'aisEva] "land/my land" and
> ['ElEd]/[El'edEva] "home/my home".  There's also extensive neutralization
> between /I E/ and /i e/--the former are disallowed finally and before
> vowels and some consonants.  Thus, it might be convenient to describe [i
> e] as underlying dipthongs /Ii Ei/, even though those phonetic forms
> never occur on the surface.  Allophonic rules would describe /I E/ --> [i
> e] for the other appropriate environments.
>
I see how you don't really need them, but it's your language and your
decision.

> This solution requires me to posit the existence of another phoneme /i/,
> though, which would only occur as the second element of a dipthong
> (either that or a whole bunch of messy diacritic stuff).  I'm not sure
> which is more elegant--the original description, or the revised
> generative solution.  (I suppose it partly depends on your view of
> generative phonology in general).
>
Messy diacritic stuff is always fun, because people never get it right.
It's as good a reason as any.

> Anyway, that's what I've been working on.  Glad to be back--the two days
> that I've already been here have been as fascinating as I remember.
>
This list is fun, very fun. Good to have you with us.

--
Robert