Re: help! phonology...

On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, dirk elzinga wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Yoon Ha Lee wrote:
>
> > I'm working my way through an introductory phonology/phonetics book and
> > trying to overhaul the phonology of Chevraqis.  What I have, tentatively,
> > is (using Kirschenbaum):
> >
> > [snipped the vowels]
> >
> > Consonants:
> > (p) b   t d        c   k
> >  m      n
> >         *
> > (f) v   s z  S Z   C   x
> >
> > Clusters can only be of the form consonant-plus-*, or /tS/ or /dZ/.
> > [b] manifests as /p/ in word-final position, /b/ elsewhere.
> > [v] manifests as /f/ in word-final position, /v/ elsewhere.
> > (I *think* this rule makes some amount of sense but I'm not entirely
> > confident.)
>
> This is actually a very nice rule; have you considered applying it to
> all voiced/voiceless pairs? There is of course good natlang precedent
> for it in Germanic and Slavic (and probably elsewhere).
<sheepish look>  I got it from German.  You're right--I think I'll try
applying it generally and see where it takes me.  :-)  Only certain
sounds are allowed in word-final position ([b], [v], [t], [d], [n], [r],
[s], [z]) right now but I'm not sure how much sense *that* rule makes either.

> > Also, (p) b, t d, k
> > is pretty unsymmetric, but I really, *really* dislike /g/ aesthetically
> > and have been running around in circles trying to figure out if it makes
> > sense to not include /g/.  How strict/common is this symmetry principle?
> > I'm almost prepared to lose all the voiced versions of sounds, but I
> > wanted to keep /t/ and /d/, /s/ and /z/, and /S/ and /Z/ for contrasted
> > but easy-to-remember inflections for dynamic-vs.-static conjugations (the
> > only thing changing in the inflection would be the voicing).  Can I get
> > away with this?
>
> Actually, the system of stops as you have outlined is very much in
> keeping with the typology of sound systems around the world. That is,
> if there is a voiceless stop missing, it is usually labial; if there
> is a voiced stop missing, it is usually velar. There are interesting
> articulatory reasons for this, which I'll spare you for fear of boring
> the already overloaded list.
<deep sigh of relief>  If you have time and the inclination, would it be
possible for you to refer me to a place where I can find the reasons, in
an off-list message?  I've been reading _An Introduction to Phonology_
and haunting that phonology-online website so this stuff becomes more
concrete, but a lot of it is still rather mysterious to me.

> > A question on transcription, for those who've made it so far:  I'm
> > contemplating using these Romanizations:
> >
> > tj for /c/
> > sj for /C/
> > sh for /S/
> > zh for /Z/
> >
> > I think the latter two are fairly "easy" for an English-speaker to figure
> > out, but I'm not really sure what to do with /c/ and /C/, especially
> > since I'm using "ch" for /tS/.
>
> You could also have <kj> for /c/ and <qj> for /C/ (if you use <q> for
> /x/, that is). Hungarian has <gy> for the voiced velar stop so there's
> even precedent.
Query: do <angle brackets> indicate Roman transcription?  Must remember that.

I like the suggestion.  Thanks very much for your help!

Best,
YHL