Re: Nonpulmonic conlang?

Sai Emrys wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:09 PM, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
[snip]

> Put another way, you should be able to use the entire language
> perfectly well even if your airflow is cut off at the neck (assuming,
> of course, that you have the presence of mind to say something instead
> of having a panic attack 'cause you're choking).
Right - a 100% non-pulmonic conlang.

[snip]

>> I assumed Sai was referring to consonant phonemes; maybe I was wrong. Are
>> nonpulmonic vowels at all possible.
>
> I have absolutely no idea if this is possible given the restriction I
> clarified above, but if it is, then yes it counts and I'd like to see
> some video of the feat. ;-)
As the vocal chords are used in the production of vowels, I don't see
how it's possible. But, as David has pointed out, we don't need vowels
anyway.

Also it's clear I was wrong in my initial assumption.

[snip]
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Eldin Raigmore
> <eldin_raigmore@...> wrote:
>> So, unless your speakers aren't human, or for some other reason you don't
>> want the language to be pronounceable, you have to have some pulmonic
>> egressive sounds, if only to serve as the nuclei of syllables.  (Actual vowels
>> would do quite nicely, of course.)
>
> Humans only.
>
> However, I don't agree that you have to have syllable-nuclei at all.
Yes, it seems that syllable-nuclei are not needed - at least, not in the
traditional sense. In a language of just clicks & ejectives, each sound
is "syllabic".
--------------------------------------------

Interesting - I've learnt a lot from this thread. I'm almost persuaded
to work on just such a conlang, but that'd would mean a fourth
unfinished conlang.

--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Frustra fit per plura quod potest
fieri per pauciora.
[William of Ockham]