Re: Lexeme Request: Water and Fire

Hi!

"David J. Peterson" <dedalvs@...> writes:
>...
> Henrik wrote:
> <<
> May I ask what do would need a list of these words for?
>  >>
>
> Two reasons, actually.  There's a general idea that words in a
> given conlang will be assigned based on "feel", and that this will
> often cause words for, for example, "water", to all have liquids,
> glides, open syllables, etc., so that a really strange word for
> "water" would be [blOrkp@sk].
>....
Interesting.  I often actively avoid this, because I don't like this
assignment by 'feel'.  At least for Tyl Sjok and Qthyn|gai, I used a
random word generator, so any reasoning about 'feel' will not be valid
anyway.

> In fact, when Sally (Caves) gave a talk at Berkeley a few years
> back, one of the people in the audience said that "all these"
> languages are all mellifluous and "pretty" sounding, and that there
> was no variability to them, and that there were no languages with
> complex sounds, like clicks, in them. ...
That's something I avoid, too.  I don't like mellifluous phonologies.
I'm even surprises to read that 'all these' languages are mellifluous,
as I had the impression that quite a few conlangers avoid creating
such phonologies.

When you do those statistics, please share the results! :-)

**Henrik

Reply