Re: Itakian - Yes, I chose that name :)

At 08:53 20/01/00 -0500, you wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Jan 2000 13:38:41 +0100, Christophe Grandsire
><Christophe.Grandsire@...> wrote:
>
>Do you mean e. g. pla#'na#'ro#'ia -> /p_ja/ ?
>
        Of course not! :) I forgot to say that all the N must be of the same kind
in this rule (all V or all L, but not a mix of them).

>Are surface sequences like /laja/ or /rana/ allowed at all?
>
        Yes, inside words (/laja/ would be written -'la'ia-, with the hyphens
meaning that there are other syllables around) and at word frontiers. It's
one of the cases when V is not elided at the end of a word, when it's
preceeded by a L.

>
>Again, if this rule is put last, then /m/ and /n/ seem to be in
>complementary distribution. But from your previous post I had the
>impression that this is not the case *on the surface*.
>
>Maybe, the 'consonant assimilation' works here, whereas 'vowel coloring'
>goes before elision (thus allowing surface sequences like /ma/, /Ne/,
>etc.)?
>
        I think I'll go with the complementary distribution :) . I did it already
with 's' in another of my languages (it could be pronounced /s/, /z/, /S/
or /Z/), and now I do it for 'n'. I generally like those kinds of features
:) .

><...>
>>        With all those rules, you have the following distribution of
>surface phones:
>>V: a  e  o
>>   a: e: o:
>>L: m   n   N   l   r   j   w
>>   m_0 n_0 N_0 l_0 r_0 j_0 w_0
>>   m=  n=  N=  l=  r=  i   u
>>C: p   t   k   ?   P   s   x   h
>>   p_m t_n k_N     P_m s_n x_N
>>   p_l t_l k_l     P_l s_l x_l
>>   p_w t_w k_w     P_w s_w x_w
>>   p_j t_S k_C     P_j S   C
>>   b   d   g       B   z   G
>>   b_m d_n g_N     B_m z_n G_N
>>   b_l d_l g_l     B_l z_l G_l
>>   b_w d_w g_w     B_w z_w G_w
>>   b_j d_Z g_J     B_j Z   J
>>
>
>I thought once more about the distinction between /i/ and /J/, and I saw
>a difficulty here again. I can imagine syllables like /jl=/ with
>very tense spirant /j/ only. So it seems that the place of articulation
>should differ. E. g. /J/: front velar, /G/: back velar, /j/ (= i):
>palatal.
>
        I have no difficulty pronouncing /jl=/ different from /Jl=/, so I may not
see your difficulty. Of course, it must be a weak point of the system, but
all phonetic/emic systems in natlangs are full of that, and that's what
makes evolution possible, at least in the domain of sound. I may have a
dialect of it which makes no difference between /j/ and /J/, and between
/j_0/ and /C/. Of course, what I'm showing you right now is the 'pure'
language, the one which is said to be the 'high standard' (if there is any,
and if there's not, than I consider it to be my high standard, from which I
will work on the actually pronounced forms). Dialectical differences are
always possible.

>I like it ever more!
>
        Thanks! Now that this part is done, I will work more on the grammar now.
The next post will show you a sketch of what I've thought about for the
noun classes, and maybe a few other things, like the culture associated to
this language (as far as I know, it will be a rather advanced
shamanistic/animistic culture, certainly in an alternative time-line).

                                                        Christophe Grandsire
                                                |Sela Jemufan Atlinan C.G.

"Reality is just another point of view."

homepage : http://rainbow.conlang.org