Re: Analyzing Phonology

Jan van Steenbergen wrote:
>So yes, I have been doing that, too. Simply pulling words out of the air
>and
>implementing them into my vocabulary for no other reason than that I liked
>them.
>Without checking or double-checking if they would fit into the undefined
>phonological rules of my language.
>But does that mean that they don't fit? I don't think so. When browsing
>through
>my vocabulary, I even see the opposite: they fit perfectly, maybe even
>better
>than many words that were created according to the rules. Because the
>absence
>of a clearly defined and deeply elaborated phonology does not necessarily
>mean
>that there is no phonology at all; on the contrary, it exists, and is
>alive!
>But only in one's head, on a strictly intuitive level.
If anyone ever creates a standardized test for the typologizing of
conlanging brains, something like this surely needs to be included. When _I_
make up words "out of thin air", it always ends up quite similarly;
something like English consonants plus velar fricatives, the classical five
vowels, fairly complex syllable structure and a tendency to final stress. To
achieve something more individual, I need to define pretty stricly the
phonemic inventory and basic phontactics before creating any vocab to speak
of.

                                                  Andreas

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail