Re: Analyzing Phonology

Dirk:
> At 12:59 PM -0800 1/20/03, Arthaey Angosii wrote:
> >So, to start towards a more natlang-like conlang by having some sort of
> >defined phonology, I'd like to analyze my existing words and see what
> >patterns emerge.  I really really really don't want to do this by hand
>
> As a phonologist, you don't know how it pains me to hear you say
> this! What a golden opportunity! In my own projects, I've always
> started with some idea of what the phonology is going to be and then
> constructed words which conform to that idea -- I've never been able
> to just start making words to see what turned up. I feel in my heart
> of hearts that should someone work this way, the resulting phonology
> would be completely natural and idiosyncratic -- a true reflection in
> speech sounds of a person's esthetic.
I tried this & it caused all sorts of conniptions. Simplifying the
phonological details, the rules of Livagian make the first syllable
tonic. But I also decreed that any glossolalic forms I produced in
my quest for Livagian words would be kosher Livagian. And the
european in me produced forms with noninitial and/or multiple tonics.
So I had to go create all sorts of contorted machinery to accommodate
this egregious discrepancy. And while you would have liked the
principle that "data is data and must be accounted for", you would
not have liked the baroque devices necessary to account for it!

But yes, the idea of creating a conlang by speaking it, and only
after the fact analysing it, is very seductive!

--And.

Reply