Re: New Conlang

> >> ># 1 wrote:
> >>The only problem I see is that it is too weird to be really effective..
>I >>always get stuck with the dilemma efficienty vs. weirdness...
> >
> >If you want to stick with the heavy morphophonological constraints, I
>guess >the best solution would be to add more phonemes. And while adding
>new POAs >may work for a while, the exponential approach would probably be
>more >effective. Eg. by adding contrastive palatalization and
>glottalization, you >could (almost) quadruple your phonemic inventory. And
>consonants like >/G_j_>/ would certainly help with the weirdness. :D
> >
>
>/G_j_>/? Yeah that seems weird!
>
>I tought that only the voiceless consonant could be ejectives, am I wrong?
It's not IMPOSSIBLE, just really really difficult (and the voicing will be
very weak.) But yes, I did mean /_</. Looks like I don't know nearly as much
X-SAMPA by heart as I think ._.;;

...Anyway, another easy way to boost the phonemic inventory would be
phonemic lenght.


> >BTW, one xenophonology idea I've considered allowed almost any phonemes
>to >be co-articulated. Of course, with phonemes like /vo)/ and /p4)/, you
>can >imagine it'd be a bitch and a half to pronounce...
> >
>
>How does /vo)/ sounds? How does sound a coarticulation of a consonant and a
>vowel?
In this case, by rounding and mild velarization. Essentially this would be a
system which contrasted several degrees of palatalization and velarization.


>That'd sure be weird! I wonder how such caracteristic could appear in a
>language.. It would need a sound change like "all the vowels accuring
>between two single consonants desappear" or something like this..
Actually, I meant /vo)/ being a phoneme separate from both /v/ and /o/. But
your idea sounds good too :)

John Vertical

_________________________________________________________________
Estä pop-up-mainokset http://toolbar.msn.fi