Re: New H/G lang?

Rob writes:
>>>>>>
> Van: Paul Bennett <Paul.Bennett@...>
> Maybe
> I could lose the "Ejective/Implosive/Click" section of the MOA
dimensions,
> giving 3x4x2x3x3.  That doesn't actually make much difference, though,
does it?.

Keep the ejectives! There cool!
<<<<<<

I'm goind to.  They are cool.  I'm not sure how to rank the three MOAs in
"Emphasis" order, though.  Any suggestions?

>>>>>>
> Tongue "Shape":
>      Front
>      Back
I don't understand this one. Isn't Front/Back a distinction in vowels?
<<<<<<

Right, I have eight POAs, which I have (deep structure) analysed as four POAs,
each with two variations.  The POAs are:

Bilabial
Linguolabial (Originally a "hasty stand-in" to make 4x2 positions, but I came to
like it)

Interdental
Alveolar

Palatal
Retroflex

Velar
Pharyngeal (is this the right term for "one step further back than velar"?)

Not sure about the distinction Palatal/Retroflex.  Is there a more naturalistic
way to group these into a 4x2 grid?  Possibly, (alveolar with retroflex) and
(linguolabial with interdental), but then I have to group Palatal with Bilabial,
which is even worse!

Alternately, I could just ditch the 4x2 notion, as it makes no difference to the
(surface level) lang.


>>>>>>
> This leaves me 164 consonants, which is better, but still a bit "out
there".
<<<<<<
The astute reader will have realised I screwed that up a bit.  The real answer
is 144.





*************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity
to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the
sender. This footnote also confirms that this email message
has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses.
*************************************************************