Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: your opinion

From:Reilly Schlaier <schlaier@...>
Date:Wednesday, January 2, 2008, 3:09
> >I gathered you're trying to do this, in essence: >-1- [i I e] become [i\ I\ @] before a retroflex >-2- [i\ I\ @] become [M U 7] everywhere >-1'- [@] becomes [I\] everywhere >-2'- [I\] becomes [i\] everywhere > >But change -2-, which I'd argue to be unconditioned "drift" (ie. once the >front vowels have developed the backed allophones, the retroflexes aren't >"needed" any more for the further backing) should mess up either the input >or output of changes -1'- and -2'-. OK, in theory it's possible that even >-0'- [n= l=] become [@n @l] everywhere >occurs after change -2- so the "vowel trajectories" would not strictly cross >— but in your Big Inventory here, I just don't think an epenthetic vowel >would take on a quality different from all the phonemic vowels. Altho I can >see why you wouldn't *like* that; you'd get new intervocalic [k], which >would mess up your neat "cross-allophonic" stop-system, in part. >akn [akUn] = /akUn/ not /akn/ >akun [agUn] = /agUn/ not /akUn/ >agun [aGUn] = /aGUn/ not /agUn/
okay i think ive got it and now my head hurts lol but it seems to me that the only way to avoid messing up my neat :) system is to either voice it akn [agn=] or devoice the 'n' getting akn [ak_n] ish