Re: Romanization of Reduced Vowels

I'd like to help but I don't understand the words you use (I'm not a linguist).
But just in case, if I dare precise :

> >Well then, what about in words such as /s.li:/ where /s/ and /l/ is
> >seperated by an [I]?
It writes *si* plus a subscribed *l*. You may put @ after some consonnants like
*r*, *v*, *l*, not *s*, and you get *h* with plosives like in *phleung*.

> >
> >And in words like /k.m.rup/ 'to complete' where /k/ and /m/ is
> >separated by [U], and /m/ and /r/ is separated by zero? Actually,
> >the "-m-" in /k.m.rup/ is an infix to /k.rup/ 'all', where /k/ and
> >/r/ is separated by zero.
It's written *k+mu+p* with *r* subscribed under *mu* to have *mru* but the infix is
the vowel *um*, not *om*, because it's a *k* of the second series of
consonnants. It's just a matter of orthography, because you need to subscribe
the *r*.

>
> Without a full description of Mon-Khmer phonotactics, I can't say.  It
> seemed from the first examples you gave that the coloring of the epenthetic
> vowel was conditioned by the sounds around it.
Maybe. It reads differently depending whether it's a *m/n/ng* infix or else.

  This may still be the case
> but the conditioning factors are maybe more involved than I thought.  If
> the coloring of these vowels is conditioned then the coloring will not have
> phonemic status.
>
?

> >Perhaps the [I] in /s.li:/ is conditioned by the [i:]
it's silent because it's *s*.
 and the [U] in
> >/k.m.rup/ conditioned by the [m] and/or the [u]?
it's one vowel *um* as an infix.

 In any case, in
> >very slow and precise speech, these reduced vowels are fully
> >articulated (either [@] [I] or [U])and not reduced to zero.
>
yes. but i don't get it for the *l*, : it's written *slii* and I don't think you
could pronounce it *s@lii*.

> Right, so the vowels are probably not epenthetic but rather more like the
> English reduced vowels which are often omitted in 'allegro speech', e.g.
> temporary /'tEMprI/, practically /'pr&ktIklI/, international
> /Int@(r)'n&Snl/ etc.  If so, then IMO one ought to write a vowel.  If they
> are all conditioned variants of /@/ then one symbol would probably suffice.
> But if all three can occur in the same environment then they probably do
> have separate phonemic status.  One might use {a}, {i} and {u} if it were
> possible in the spelling to distinguish between 'reduced' [@] [I] and [U]
> or maybe put a breve or some other appropriate diacritic above them.
>
> >So these
> >vowels are there, but som tend to disappear in normal speech to form
> >clusters.
>
> That's a common feature of spoken English also - see above.
>
> >Does that mean they have phonemic status? And if so, would
> >that mean I should represent them?
>
> It looks as though they might - but, as I say, one really needs to know
> more about Mon-Khmer and, alas, I do not.  We need to find a linguist with
> some expertise in the language.  Any on this list?
I'm no linguist but I thought maybe I could help somehow. It's not *scholar* of
course and I may be wrong.
>
> >I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean when
> >you ask whether these vowels have phonemic status. I'm so ignorant,
> >you see... B48-)
>
> I'll try to discover more if I can.
That's too bad I can't find that paper explaining everything in a very scholar way
that confused me so much. I'm sure you would adore it ;-) I thought I put in
that d... file 2 years ago. I'm looking after it.
>
> Ray.
>
>
Mathias



-----
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/conlang/?start=19028