Re: New Conlang

> ># 1 wrote:
> >
> > > Last night, I tought of a new conlang.
> > > All the nouns (an pronouns) are made of a root of vowels
> > > When the case is absolutive, the infix is the verb, made of one or
>more
> > > consonants. Its time is indicated by a suffix.
> >
> >This looks very, very, very much unlike any natlang I have seen or
> >heard of - but it is an interesting idea.
> >
>
>That's exactly what I wanted!
Yes, looks quite creative.


>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

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...


> > > t_N = tl
> > > d_N = dl
> > > s_N = sl
> > > z_N = zl
> > > l = l
> > > l_N = ll
> >
> >Ahh, linguolabials!  Sweet!
> >
>
>Yeah I like them! particularly /l_N/, but /s_N/ and /z_N/ also sound odd
>:-)
Speaking of of which. What's the lower jaw doing while pronouncing
linguolabials? Is it supposed to hang open or aid in the closure??
Particularily the fricatives sound IMO totally different depending on
this...


> > > B\ = cc
> >
> >|cc| for a bilabial trill is, well, hardcore ;-)
> >
>
>In fact I wanted trills being two times the flap letters (because, after
>all, that's what they are) and the flaps being individual letters and not
>digraphs because I want to use them often as basic sounds
Is there an official way in any phonetic alphabet to denote the length of a
trill? How does one mark whether /r:/ is /444/ or /4444/ or /4444444/ ... ?


> > > There are also two consonants that do not mean verbs
> > >
> > > /?/ = q
> > > That marks the ergative
I'd have chosen a more "neutral" symbol... it looks like most words in a
phrase are going to end up with a "q" this way. But I guess that goes well
together with your goal of freakyness :)

How are you forming conjunctions, etc?

John Vertical

_________________________________________________________________
Lataa ilmainen MSN Messenger http://messenger.msn.fi

Reply