Re: NEW LANG: Telek

Jim Grossmann wrote:

>> Except for the glottal stop, each consonant may be geminate.
>
>Maybe I'm getting ahead of things, but why make an exception of the glottal
>stop?
Because I've never seen a language that allows a geminate glottal stop,
even if
they allow geminates of other stops.  I would love to see a counter-example.

>Also, how do you prolong a flap?  (By making it a trill?   That would work.)
I hadn't thought about that yet.  Yes, I will probably make it a trill should
the occassion arise.

>> 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.
>
>Does your language permit C1-V-C1?   bab    pop    ded
Yes.  I used C1 and C2 as labels so I could refer to them easier.  The labels
have no phonological import.  Apparently I made things confusing.

>What do you mean by "divide into syllables at the boundary?  Are you saying
>that morpheme-initial vowels or sequences of contiguous vowels can only
>occur at the boundaries between inflectional and other types of morphemes?
A sequence of two vowels may only occur after an inflectional prefix or before
an inflection suffix.  For example, _so.apa_ "He exists" but so.ngo.pa "He is
there" (with initial a of _apa_ deleted).

>> 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.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean here.   Are you saying that C1V.{h,'}V -->
>C1V.C1V?   If so, then we're not talking about gemination AFAIK.    Your
>process could create some homonyms.
Maybe it would be clearer to say that ' and h fully assimilate to a preceding
consonant.  For example, et "we" + 'ondam "laugh" > ettondam "we laugh" (but
with ke "s/he" you would get ke'ondam "s/he laughs") and et + hosy "whisper" >
ettosy "we whisper" (but kehosy).

>> 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.
>
>At the risk of exposing my relative ignorance of phonology, I'll ask why you
>have these rules.   "y" is sort of close to /i/, so why have a rule that
>deletes /i/ and substitutes in /y/ in the same environment?
The /u/ > [y] process is triggered by the position of the tongue: the vowel
shifts forward to be closer to the articulation of the consonant.  The same
type of rule is found in Japanese, where /su/ is pronounced /sy/ (according to
the orthography I'm using).  Actually, Japanese /u/ is unrounded.  Perhaps I
ought to front /u/ to a round version of [y]?

/y/ doesn't change because it is already at the proper location.

Either /i/ should be pulled back by the tongue position, or /t/ should
palatalize to [ch] (= the sound in English orthography).  I don't want the
high
vowels to collapse into a single sound in this position, nor do I want
[ch], so
I simply delete it.  Not completely natural perhaps.

>> 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
>
>Are you describing clusters?   I thought clusters were forbidden by your
>syllable structure.   I'm not familiar with the use of the term "coda" in
>this context.
Clusters can appear across syllable boundaries: VC.CV.  Coda refers to any
consonant in syllable final position.

>> Nasals always assimilate to a following consonant.
>
>Again, I'm not sure what you mean.   Do you  mean that the nasal acquires
>the same place as the following consonant?   e.g.    mata > nata?
Sorry, they assimilate in place of articulation to an immediately following
consonant.  mt > nt, ngp > mp, nf > mf, etc.  I'm not sure what to do with
nasal-glide combinations yet.  Maybe the nasal becomes the same glide, and
they
both are nasalized.

>> Short fricatives and short unaspirated stops may optionally voice
>> intervocalicly.  Oddly enough, the word _hidu_ "to exist (inanimate
>> subject)" cannot voice.  Maybe some others do too, but I haven't found
>them
>> yet.
>
>Optional intervocalic voicing for purely phonological reasons seems
>unnatural.   I think you should specify a "higher" purpose of such
>alternation:   e.g.   informal vs. formal speech.
I'll consider it.  Maybe I'll make it into the early stages of a diachronic
change: older people never voice, younger people do occassionally.

>I think that lots of restrictions on sequences of consonants make more sense
>in a language that permits lots of clusters.   Simple syllable structure
>makes for long words;   freer distribution of consonants could increase your
>supply of short words.
There are no monosyllabic words in Telek, and relatively few disyllabic.

>I LIKE the idea that contiguous vowels signal boundaries between certain
>kinds of morphemes;   that strikes me as elegant and "conlangy" in a good
>way.
Thanks, but I can't take credit.  It is a dull version of a concept in
Chickasaw.  Chickasaw has a similar (less restrictive) rule against VV
sequences.  In verbs that begin with /a/, when an inflectional prefix
ending in
a vowel is added, instead of deleting one, the /a/ moves in front of the
inflection: po "we" + abika "be sick" > apobika "we are sick".  It's just a
way
to keep the inflections as intact as possible.

Marcus