Re: Trans: Shoeflower Nose Man (Vyh)

On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:19:06 +0100, Christophe Grandsire
<christophe.grandsire@...> wrote:

>En réponse à Jeff Jones <jeffsjones@...>:
>
>> If I find the person who lifted my trees,
>> I'm going to make him sing his quiet words using his torch.
>
>:)) I like the nonsense of this sentence :) .
>
>[snip translation]
>
>Interesting, a or... or construction for if... then.
>
>> Notes:
>>     1. If aspect is omitted, it is either progressive (for "verbs) or
>>  stative (for "adjectives" and "nouns").
>>     2. If mood/tense is omitted, it is general (no specific time) and
>>  indicative/relative
>>     3. If grammatical voice is omitted, it is passive
>
>Passive? According to what I've read, it's more like an ergative
>construction.
You're right I think, but passive here simply means the subject is
interpreted as the patient (as patient is defined in this language). Sorry
if it's confusing, but I need to understand my own notes, even if nobody
else does.
>
>> Vowel Phones
>>               | front              back
>>     ----------+-------------------------
>>     high      | [i]                 [u]
>>     mid-high  |   [I]              [U]
>>               |
>>     mid-low   |       [E]        [O]
>>     low       |         [&]    [A]
>>
>>     Note that even though symbols normally indicating rounded vowels
>>     are used, the vowels here are not necessarily rounded.
>
>If it's phonemes you're describing, they have to be in slashes //. If it's
>phones, than [u], [U] and [O] are necessarily rounded, since they are what
>they represent.
They can be rounded but don't have to be.
The problem is that phonemic notation doesn't really indicate the
pronunciation, while the strict phonetic notation makes the result
unreadable with redundant information.

>Phonemes describe the constrative segments of the spoken language. Phones
>describe the actual physical interpretation of them, so if you use rounded
>vowels to describe phones, it means that those phones are rounded. You
>have to use their unrounded equivalents to describe unrounded phones (note
>that U doesn't have an unrounded equivalent in IPA).
In other words, you're telling me I have to do what's impossible!

>
>> Consonant Phones
>>                 |  stop      affricate fricative nasal lateral Approx.
>>                 |  Vl.  Vd.  Vl.   Vd. Vl.  Vd.   Vd.           Vd.
>>   --------------+-----------------------------------------------------
>>   bilabial      | [p]   [b]                       [m]           [w]
>>   labiodental   |                      [f]  [v]
>>   dental **     | [t]*  [d]                       [n]    [l]
>>   alveolar      |                      [s]  [z]
>>   retroflex     |                                        [r]
>>   palatoalveolar|           [tS]* [dZ] [S]  [Z]   [J]
>>   palatal       |                                               [j]
>>   palatovelar   | [c]*  [y]            [C]
>>   velar         | [k]*  [g]            [x]  [G]   [N]
>>
>>   *   The phones [t], [tS], [c], and [k] are aspirated.
>
>Then again, if you're describing phones, you have to write them [t_h],
>[t_S_h], [c_h] and [k_h]. You're not obliged to do so if you're describing
>phonemes (since phonemes contain only the contrastive features, and
>there's no unaspirated /t/ to contrast with your aspirated /t_h/).
>
>Christophe.