Re: This is not a conlang.

>having listened to this
>about thirty times.
I'm sure I could beat that! (if I had kept count :-)

>>> Secondly, am I completely correct in my belief that the sample I have
>>> given really *is* indistinguishable from real speech, or would an
>>> appropriate statistical analysis of the phonetics probably reveal some
>>> hidden unnatural features?
I would guess that advanced statistical methods would be able to discern
something about word frequency or distribution or something. But that's
just a guess. They seem to be able to decide the same about the Voynich
Manuscript.

>(Please forgive my inaccurate spelling and hearing--the ellipses are where
>I just wasn't fast enough writing at your speed of diction):
Interesting. I hear the sounds a bit differently. I agree with there being
four sentences, and the rising/falling stress, but not the sounds. The top
line in each of the following pairs is your's, the bottom is mine. Brackets
indicate sections I'm not fairly sure about. They should line up.

1)
Mirakun essem ...            krokuan       ...echoda,
Pirakun essem [e] kudamasane krekuma [esse]madaktada,

bekoian  ...                    am chupea.
mukhoyin ered [merekolins even] al chupea.

2)
Ne firkun, ishuan a pragna     ata echuala, herkol, ....  achenena.
Lithiakum, yeshum apagna esmum ata   chula, hekol [enwasua] tenena.

3)
Hunse   ulpits ....           chuapan, ishi para  a colchu.
[Hönsen ukhet akumen]telum er johaen  [ashupereng apolitür].

4)
Enkumpan, e krenenos, e krokua.
Ahuntren, e kernenos, e papua.

To me, this sounds vaugely Semetic (especially 'muchoyin ered'),
although 'kernenos' sounds decidedly Greek.

~Caleb

Reply