Re: New Lang: Igassik

On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 15:00:37 -0700, Marcus Smith <smithma@...> wrote:

>Hey all,
>
>I've started on a new conlang. The grammar is bearly touched at this point,
>but I'm having lots of fun with phonology. Telek was rather dull in this
>respect, so I'm making up for it now. (Okay, truth be told, I'm doing field
>work on a phonologically interesting language and I've been inspired. PIMA
>ROCKS!) I'm calling it Igassik for now, but the name will undoubtablly
>change since Igassik is the Telek word for it.
>
>The orthography I'm using right now is sure to change. I don't like it so
>much, but I will have to have digraphs and am not sure which ones will work
>best yet.
>
>BTW, I'm inventing the words in the phonology section. They don't have any
>meaning.
>
>10 Vowels:
>i y     ue u
>e oe    ^ o
>  ae    a
Aha! something to sink my teeth into! I'm proud of myself for guessing the
vowel (approximate) pronunciation, which I usually can't do. Wouldn't it be
more consistent, though, to switch {y} with {ue}? Both rounded front vowels
would then have the formula rounded back vowel + {e}. I know IPA uses {y}
for a front vowel, but this is a dumb move on their part, IMO. And, IIRC,
don't some Slavicists use {y} for an unrounded central/back vowel?

>i, y, e, oe, ae are front vowels
>ue, u, ^, o, a are back vowels
>
>This is important, because the language has vowel harmony. Thus, the
>following are possible words: kaethsim, nervoet, tluj^f, ba~xuel. However,
>the next are not: kaethsum, nervot, tlujoef, ba~xyl.  Either all the vowels
>are front or all the vowels are back; front and back can never be mixed.
>
>i, e, ae, ue, ^, a are unrounded
>y, oe, u, o are rounded
>
>This is important, because the language has vowel harmony in rounding when
>the vowels are separated by labials or glottals. That is, you can have
>drubym but not drubim; ko'oez but not ko'ez; obvyks but not obviks. On the
>other hand, it is perfectly acceptable to have something like dhuetel,
>because the vowels are separated by an alveolar. /ae/ and /a/ don't count
>for rounding harmony.
>
>25 consonants:
>
>   T t k '
>b D d g
>f th s x h
>v dh z
>m N n ng ~
>w j
>r l
>
>T and D are interdental stops.
>th and dh are interdental fricatives
>N is an interdental nasal
>~ is a "free-floating" nasal (more on this below)
>l is an alveolar lateral
>r is a retroflex tap.
Let's see, {t}, {d}, and {n} are what, alveolar? Since upper case is used
for interdental stops and nasals, shouldn't the fricatives also (for
consistency, again) be upper case? {TH} and {DH} -- this would also solve
the ambiguity involving {h}, I think.

>/~/ is basically nasalization that attaches itself to a preceding sound. If
>the preceding sound is a vowel, then the vowel is nasalized: the phonemic
>sequence /a/ + /~/ becomes [a~:] (long nasalized vowel). If the preceding
>sound is a stop, then /~/ becomes a nasal of the same place of
>articulation: the sequence /b/ + /~/ becomes [bm]. /~/ can never be the
>last sound in a word final cluster. If a word begins with /~/ you don't
>hear it in isolation. However, when it follows a word ending in a vowel,
>the vowel in the previous word is nasalized.
Would this be an exasmple of an "initial feature?"

>inj and to; but to~ inj.
>
>Syllable structure:
>
>The syllable template is (C1)(C2)V(C3)(C4).
>
>C1 may be any consonant, unless there is a C2, in which case C1 may only be
>a non-glottal stop or fricative.
>
>ta, 'e, lo, jy
>*?thi, *hrae, *ndo, *wka, *lTue
>
>C2 may be any be any consonant except a nasal. (This assumes that C2 only
>exists if there is already a C1). Yes, sequences like /kt/ are possible!
>
>kta, tle, gwe, Tjoe, bzae
>*kngo, *tmoe
>
>C3 may be any glide, liquid, or nasal; or it can be a voiceless stop or
>fricative. (Final devoicing for all you German or Pima fans.) This doesn't
>get changed by having a C4.
>
>alk, inr, yjm, ipth, ith
>(See! I need to change my orthography -- <th> can be /th/ or /t/ + /h/).
>
>C4 can be any glide, liquid, voiceless stop, or voiceless fricative. It can
>also be a nasal if C3 is a glide.
>
>akt, ufj, ojm, eks
>
>A couple words about final glottals. Now doesn't it seem wierd to allow
>something like /t/ + /'/ and /t/ + /h/? What would they sound like? Answer:
>C plus glottal stop is unreleased for stops and clipped short for
>everything else, and C plus /h/ is heavily aspirated.
>
>Similarly, a C plus /j/ gives palatalized C's, and C plus /w/ gives a
>labialized C.
>
>Quite frequenty, the sequences V'V and VhV (where both V's are the same)
>reduces to V: (long V). Generally speaking then, words like ba'ak and bahak
>can only be distinguished in careful, slow speach. Typically, they both
>sounds like [ba:k].
>
>Misc:
>Words may never have more than two syllables.
>Stress is on the first syllable.
>
>
>===============================
>Marcus Smith
>AIM:  Anaakoot
>"When you lose a language, it's like
>dropping a bomb on a museum."
>   -- Kenneth Hale
>===============================
A nice outline, professor. I hope my questions are helpful.

Jeff