Re: NEW LANG: Telek

On Fri, 21 Apr 2000, Marcus Smith wrote:

> This is the phonology for the conlang I've been slowly developing (or at
> least it's the most recent incarnation).
>
> Phonemes
>
> Vowels
> High: i, y, u
> Low:  e, a, o
>
> /y/ is unround, high, central (IPA barred-I), the rest as in Spanish.  They
> may all occur long or short, and there are no diphthongs.  I only gave
> high/low distinction because I have not discovered any rules that operate
> on differently on the "low" vowels.  That is, e, a, and o all behave the
> same so far.
>
> Consonants:
> Aspirated Stop: p, t, k
> Unaspirated: b, d, g, ' (' = glottal stop)
> Fricatives: f, s, x, h
> Nasals: m, n, ng
> Glides: j, w (j = palatal glide)
> Lateral: l/r (r = alveolar flap)
>
> Except for the glottal stop, each consonant may be geminate.
Glides as well? Some might see this as being unusual in the same
way as a geminate glottal stop (though not to the same degree).

> /l/ and /r/ are in a sound symbolism relationship.  /l/ is typically found,
> but /r/ may be used to show negative connotations of all sorts.  For
> example, _tele_ is the verb stem for "speak" but it can be used as _tere_
> to show clumsiness of speech such as stuttering, grasping for words, etc.
> So _keteele_ (phonological lengthening, see section on pitch-accent)  "he
> speaks" but _keteere_ "he speaks (haltingly/stuttering/in an irritating
> manner)"  Using /r/ in a person's name is highly insulting, and therefore
> is a common feature in conversations between "tough" young males, usually
> in their teens through late 20's.  Some words that are inheirently impolite
> may only occur with /r/, and because of this there are near minimal pairs
> suggestive that /l/ and /r/ are separate phonemes: _birtytum_ "clumsy
> person, oaf" vs. _bilty_ "type of fish" (I don't know what kind yet, but
> people eat them).  (These words are in no way related).
Very nice! How productive is this?

> Pitch-accent:
>
> Words start at a low pitch, and gradually raise until reaching the peak
> syllable.  Pitch remains high on every remaining syllable (usually only
> one).  Determining the peak is done by the following rules:
>
> 1. The peak is either the ultimate or penultimate syllable, whichever is
> heavier, if tied, on the ultimate.
> 2. The peak must be heavy.
> 3. If both syllables are light, the vowel of the penult lengthens and
> becomes the peak.
> 4. The peak may not be on the initial syllable, disyllabic words peak on
> the final syllable.
Doesn't rule 3 contradict rule 1? If I read rule 1 correctly,
the following situation obtains for a word ending in two light
syllables:

        ... CV.'CV.

After lengthening,

        ... CV.'CVV.

With accent falling on the final syllable. But in rule 3 you
address this specific scenario stating that the penultimate
becomes heavy and thus eligble for the accent:

        UR      ... CV.CV.
        V-long  ... CVV.CV.
        accent  ... 'CVV.CV.

Which is very different. So which is it? (Or here's a
possibility which just occured to me: does rule 1 apply only to
cases where the final two syllables are both heavy?)

> In questions, the peak must remain on the stem, it cannot drift onto
> derivational or inflectional morphemes.
>
> Phonotactics
>
> The syllable template is (C1)V(C2).  Within a root and derivational
> morphology, syllables divide as CV.CV.  The sequence CV1.V2C is impossible,
> and in such situations, the vowel closest to the stem deletes: CV1.C in the
> case of prefixes, CV2C in suffixes.  Inflectional morphemes divide into
> syllables at the boundary, so it is possible to have CV.VC or VC.VC.
This looks like Lexical Phonology; if so, it seems odd that in
the first stratum (stem + derivational morphology) you avoid
hiatus by deleting the vowel closest to the stem (could this
also be a stem vowel?); I would have expected the other vowel to
delete.

I do like the division into derivational and inflectional
phonology; it reminds me of Navajo conjunctive and disjunctive
prefixes!

> C1 may be any consonant word initially, but is mildly restricted after
> another consonant: the glottals ' and h may not occur after C.  When this
> happens, the glottal disappears, and the preceding C geminates.
Are coda consonants moraic? If so, I would expect that this is
result of preserving syllable weight in the leftmost syllable.
If not, I would have expected the glottal to disappear
altogether. Interesting ...

> V may be any vowel, either long or short.  However, if the preceding C is
> an alveolar obstruent, /i/ deletes, and /u/ fronts and de-rounds to /y/.
> If the deletion causes a sequence of three C's, the middle one deletes,
> unless it is /s/, in which case the first C deletes.
For me, the most salient gesture of [y] is the lack of rounding
rather than the relatively more advanced tongue position WRT
[u]. If /u/ fronted all the way to [i], and this rule followed
the /i/ deletion, the result would be a nice case of opacity,
which is not often seen in conlangs!

> C2 may be any consonant word finally, but is severely restricted before
> another consonant.  Before another C, C2 must be unaspirated or assimilated
> to a following homorganic stop, e.g., ts > ds, td > dd, dt > tt, tk > dk.
> Note that this is not a restriction on codas, because this does not hold
> word finally, or in codas followed by a vowel, a situation found at the
> inflection-stem boundary.
It just seems wrong not to think of this as a coda-condition,
but I can't think of any really convincing arguments. I'd like
to see some evidence that there really is a syllable boundary
between a C and a following V; I believe such things happen, but
there is always compelling evidence for it.

Very nice stuff.

Dirk

--
Dirk Elzinga
dirk.elzinga@m.cc.utah.edu