Re: Nimrina phonology

Herman Miller skrev:
>  From the recent discussion of phonology, I've realized it's been a
> while since I did a language with a really interesting phonology. My
> recent languages feel pretty artificial in that respect. So I decided to
> start a new language, which makes use of phonological alterations in the
> morphology for a more realistic feel.
>
> So far what I have is this:
>
> Initial consonant mutations in compounds (as in Japanese):
> tilin "small"
> sáti "foot"
> tilinzáti "small-footed; having small feet"
>
> Alteration of the final consonant when adding a suffix:
> sán "two", satsa "twenty"
> klym "five", klypsa "fifty"
>
> The details need some work, but I'll eventually figure something out. My
> current idea is that -ssa is the suffix for "10 times", but due to
> phonological restrictions, it ends up as -sa after consonants. The full
> set of numerals:
>
> 1 mi [m_ji], 10 há [ha:]
> 2 sán [sa:n], 20 satsa [satsa] (note shortening of vowel)
> 3 pai [pai], 30 paissa [pais:a]
> 4 trún [t`s`u:n], 40 trutsa [t`s`utsa]
> 5 klym [kl1m], 50 klypsa [kl1psa]
> 6 hrána [s`a:na], 60 hransa [s`aA~sa]
> 7 zá [za:], 70 zassa [zas:a]
> 8 híhli [Ci:K_ji], 80 hihlisa [CiK_jisa]
> 9 vai [vai], 90 vaissa [vais:a]
>
> I have yet to work out the rules for shortening of vowels, so some of
> these may eventually change. I might leave a few irregularities here and
> there.
>
> Nimrína [n_jimz`i:na] currently has 17 consonant phonemes (p b t d k g m
> n r v s z s` z` h K l) and 6 vowel phonemes [i 1 u E O a]. Vowels can be
> long or short, but since there are numerous diphthongs, it might be more
> appropriate to consider long vowels as sequences of two identical
> vowels. Note the absence of /f/, which has merged with /h/; /h/
> alternates with /v/ in phonological contexts where it needs to be voiced.
Nice.  Do /K/ ~ /l/ also pattern as a voiceless-voiced pair?
Are all /h/s from *f?  If not /h/ may alternate with zero in
some cases!

> Spelling is more or less phonemic, with some complications; for
> instance, /z`/ is "r" and /r/ is "rr", so long /z`:/ is written "zr" to
> avoid confusion with /r/.
Somehow _rz_ for /z`z`/ would seem more right to me,
probably because Swedish retroflexes represent /r/+dental,
and because _rz_ is one of the spellings of Polish /z`/,
but perhaps /rz/ is a possible cluster while **/zr/ isn't?

BTW did you know that _nimir/nimri/nimrim_ is the word
for 'Elf/Elves' in Tolkien's Adûnaic language?

--
/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se

    "Maybe" is a strange word.  When mum or dad says it
    it means "yes", but when my big brothers say it it
    means "no"!

                            (Philip Jonsson jr, age 7)

Reply