Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: New Conlang

From:John Vertical <johnvertical@...>
Date:Tuesday, August 2, 2005, 17:17
> >> ># 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