Re: Vowel Harmony Asthetically Pleasing?
|From:||Adam F. <hypaholic@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, December 29, 2004, 6:50|
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 07:23:45 +0000, Ray Brown <ray.brown@...> wrote:
>On Sunday, December 26, 2004, at 10:25 , Joe wrote:
>> # 1 wrote:
>>> Adam F. wrote:
>>>> I am looking for opinions. Who finds vowel harmony in general to be
>>>> asthetically pleasing and what do you think of my sketch?
>>> It seems to be harmonic except the "a[A]" that is the only unrounded
>>> of your back vowels,
>>> It is a little out of the harmony compared with the others of its group
>> Indeed. I'd add a rounded front group and an unrounded back group:
>OK - but why must Adam ape the Turkish type of vowel harmony? It is not by
>any means the only sort of vowel harmony found in natlangs.
>> Rounded front:
>> ü[y], ö, (å with umlaut, perhaps?)[&\]
>Yes, I was forgetting in my previous mail that Finnish vowel harmony
>concerns the _rounded_ high and mid vowels as well as the unrounded low
>vowels. The high & mid unrounded front vowels are neutral as regards vowel
>But Adam was asking about his scheme - it seems quite naturalistic to me.
>> Rounded back:
>> u[u], o[o], å[Q]
>> Unrounded back:
>> ì[M], è, a[A]
>Which would give Jo a scheme like the Turkish, but with three vowel levels
>in each series instead of two. But then we would lose Adam's central
>vowels - and I rather like them :)
It seems to me that natural is often less logical than we want it to be. I
am of course still taking into account all of the feedback. Thanks you