Re: Nonpulmonic conlang?

R A Brown wrote:
>> O\ (if this is the x-sampa for open-mouth-until-the-lips-go-apart, a
>> smacking sound)
>
> If you mean the bilabial click, then it's the correct symbol.
>
>> O\ (another consonant, a kissing sound)
>
> looks like the same symbol!
>
Yes, I'm not sure which is a bilabial click, I guess the latter. The
former is pronounced with the lips between the teeth, and give a sound
similar to the clonk of wood on wood. The latter is without the lips
between the teeth, and resembles an air kiss.


>> And a consonant where you place the lips between the teeth, and then
>> draw the lips out from them, with the facial muscles, a bilabial
>> egressive airstream.
>
> I don't think this even has a name - nor IPA symbol. If I'm making the sound
> right, it's actually quite noisy, sort of like a cork coming out of a bottle
> - I guess that could be non-pulmonic substitute for a vowel.
>
>> !\ where you hold your tongue as you initially do when you pronounce
>> tK)` and then make a click where the tongue hit the floor of the
>> mouth.
>
> It's the symbol for the post-alveolar click (Zulu/Xhosa |q|)
>
>> |\|\ where you release it as a lateral.
>
> Yep - that's the symbol for the lateral click (Zulu/Xhosa |x|)
>
> But, as I wrote in my earlier email, clicks are not _exclusively_
> non-pulmonic as, although the primary articulation is made with ingressive
> velaric airstream, they do involve a secondary articulation produced by an
> egressive pulmonic airstream.
>
Yes, I know. But in my sketch they only has that primary articulation,
except that the secondary articulation served as a point for the air
pressure to build up. You could perhaps describe them as !\N_0) and
|\|\N_0), but where N_0 only indicates that you _can_ breath while
pronouncing them. (The language is voiceless)


>> Now, in a non-pulmonic lang, I perceive each consonant as its own
>> "unit", which isn't a syllable but nevertheless are perceived as
>> equivalent unitwise to a syllable in a pulmonic lang. So a word with
>> six clicks is perceived as six units long, while "gapkel" only is two
>> units long, which makes the click word three times longer.
>
> I see. Just the clicking sound. Two things strike me here: the sound is not
> going to carry over much distance; without an added vowel, I'm not sure easy
> it is going to be fora listener to distinguish the different types of click.
>
> But this leaves the ejectives, which are the greater part of your inventory,
> and I do not see how they can constitute units comparable with syllables.
Well, a word such as /k_>t_>p_>/ sounds like three "units", though
with more flow than clicks, I think.


> If were using only non-pulmonic sounds, I don't think we have a
> pronounceable language.
Well, I'm able to pronounce my language, with words such as
/O\k_>p_>/, but not as a fluent speaker :P (/k_>k_>k_>/ sounds like if
you are hitting ice with some hard object) The problem is mostly that
you can't really breath while speaking, but since the language had a
self-segregating morphology you could pause whenever you wanted. And
you could have a voiceless epenthetic vowel to help you pronounce
things, though it isn't the recommended pronunciation. Maybe you could
say that each consonant is in fact followed by a very short, voiceless
glottal non-pulmonic vowel, which have the voiceless pulmonic vowel as
an allophone.

--
Veoler

Reply