Jörg Rhiemeier wrote:
> Hallo!
Hi!
[Plan B etc]
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 07:27:29 +0100, R A Brown wrote:
[snip]
>>The language *simply is not spelled phonemically*
>
> It can indeed be argued that Plan B has 16 consonant phonemes and
> 16 vowel phonemes with a rule that forbids both consonant clusters
> and vowel clusters;
It most certainly has 16 consonant phonemes. Whether it has 8 or 16
vowel phonemes is a matter of interpretation. If phonemic status is
given to /r/, then we have 8 vowel phonemes plus 8 combos of /r/ plus a
vowel. The rule is then that syllables must be of the form: C(r)V(C)
>
> this is probably a better analysis than saying
> it had 16 phonemes each with a consonantal and a vocalic allophone.
That IMHO is a simply a ridiculous analysis!
[snip]
>>Indeed, as I showed in a mail to this list, the sixteen bit patterns of
>>"Plan B" could well have been mapped to simple CV syllables. This would
>>mean that each bit pattern had only *one* pronunciation, and the written
>>representation of it would also have one pronunciation, see:
>>
http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0509c&L=conlang&P=11108
>>
>>Indeed, Jörg Riemeier has outlined an engelang using just this proposed
>>syllabary, see:
>>
http://wiki.frath.net/X-1
>
>
> I have to concede that that project quickly lost momentum soon after
> I started it. Well, I am more interested in naturalistic diachronic
> artlangs. Don't expect X-1 to go beyond that outline anytime soon.
> The question is, what are the phonemes of X-1? One way to analyse it
> would be that it had 16 consonant phonemes and no phonemic vowels,
I don't think that would be a sensible way (or, indeed, a correct way)
of doing it.
> and that the orthography was phonemic; but it is probably more
> reasonable to analyse it as having 7 consonant phonemes /p t k s m n l/
> and 4 vowel phonemes /E i O u/.
Basically I agree, tho I think I would include the 'zero consonant' as a
phoneme, i.e. 8 consonant phonemes. This simplifies the rule that all
syllables must be of the type CV
>
>>I have since myself suggested a modification of this as you will see if
>>you read my webpage quoted above.
>>
>>What Jeff Prothero did in "Plan B" was to have a system whereby each
>>pattern of four bits from 0 to F has two pronunciations - one
>>consonantal, the other vocalic - according to whether the bit pattern
>>occurs in an odd or even position. The fact that he chose to map each
>>bit pattern to a letter of the Roman alphabet that is normally used to
>>represent consonants has no relevance as to whether "Plan B" has either
>>phonetic and/or phonemic vowels.
>
> Right. After all, letters are just means to *represent* language;
> perceiving them as the "basic building blocks" of a language means
> falling way behind even 19th-century linguistics. And in the case of
> Plan B and X-1, the "deep level" is actually a stream of *bits*.
Yep - and IMO in view of Plan B's odd use of each quartet to represent
either a consonant or a vowel, it would have been better to use the
plain ol' hexadecimal digits, i.e. have the "alphabet": 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 A B C D E F.
[Phonemic & phonetic vowels]
[snip]
>>
>>Surely not! I have come across analyses of Caucasian languages which
>>postulate no _phonemic_ vowels; indeed, I have met analyses of PIE that
>>postulate no phonemic vowels.
>
>
> I have heard of such analyses as well; I don't think they are appropriate,
> though.
Yes, I have reservations such analyses
> ObConlang: Old Albic could be analysed as having just one vowel phoneme
> with vowel features being suprasegmental (they indeed behave quite much
> like tones do in some African languages), and it wouldn't surprise me
> if some razor-witted phonologist could analyse even that single vowel
> phoneme away :)
Indeed - I'm sure you're right :)
>
>>But no phonetic vowels? Is such a beast possible?
>
>
> You at least need some sort of syllable nuclei; however, nasals and
> liquids could be pressed into service for this :) But I doubt that
> such languages have ever evolved naturally.
If these sounds are serving as nuclei of syllables then they are
_phonologically_ vowels.
One does need to be very careful how we define vowel & consonant. These
terms have somewhat different meanings depending upon whether we are
talking in terms of phonetics or of phonology (Pike suggested using the
terms 'vocoid' and 'contoid' when speaking phonetically, reserving
'vowel' and 'consonant' for strictly phonological meanings). And both
must, of course, be distinguished from the popular usage which applies
these terms to letters of the alphabet, classifying |a e i o u| and
sometimes |y| as vowels and all the rest as consonants, however they are
actually used phonetically or phonologically.
Didn't we discuss this on the Conlang list in February this year?
--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.
[WELSH PROVERB]