Re: Math/Phonological formulae

On Feb 6, 2007, at 4:54 PM, Roger Mills wrote:
[snip]
>>>   First, you can knock out the [-cont, +voice] from the
>>> first set (standard C&H),
>>
>> What's C&H?
> Chomsky and Halley (Sound Pattern of English, where they invent
> several rule
> formatting conventions that are controversial, to put it mildly)
Oh, I've heard of that. It's the one that says English phonology is
still very similar to Middle English, right? It sounds like it would
be worth checking out.

[snip]
> The main point of the 3 major features-- Cons, Obst, and Syl(labic) or
> Voc(alic)-- is that you can describe whole groups with just those
> three, if
> necessary.
> [+Cons +obs]= stops and s; [+Cons -obs] = nasals,l,r (note +Cons is
> -Syl/Voc
> by definition); then [-Cons -syl] = "semivowels and things
> like ?,h" while
> [-Cons +syl] = all vowels (-Cons is -obst by def.)
See my note below.

[snip]
>>> C[+COR, +ant/+DOR] > [(+COR) -ant] /_V[-back, +ATR]
>>
>> a. Why are some of these features in caps and some not?
> maybe to emphasize them? otherwise, mistyping :-
> )
>> b. Is [+-COR] coronal, [+-ant] anterior, and [+-DOR] dorsal?
> Yes
>
>> c. Does / mean "or"?
> No; it means "in the environment of..."
In this case, I meant the / right before +DOR, not the one before _V.

[snip]

David Peterson wrote:
 > Eric wrote:
 > <<
 > Isn't /l/ also a continuant ([+cont])?
 > >>
 >
 > Roger said "no", but I'm afraid the answer is controversial.  In the
 > traditional feature chart (believe it or not), /l/ is classified
as [-cont].
 > I think it's because technically there is a complete closure between
 > the tongue and the roof of the mouth (even though air is escaping
 > through the sides).  In languages, though, if you have /l/, and
 > you have to decide whether it patterns with the stops or the
fricatives,
 > more often than not it will pattern with the stops.  That's another
 > reason why it may be classified as [-cont] (and this may change
 > for different languages).  I bet if I (or someone) looks up
Ladefodged,
 > there should be an explanation of some kind.
 >
[snip]
 > Eric:
 > <<
 > Does [+-cons] mean consonantal? (If so, I don't see how it would
disambiguate different laterals.)
 > >>
 >
 > Well, you might have a vocalic lateral that, phonologically, *is*
 > a vowel.  (So, something like [for some dialects] the vowel in
 > "pull", but widespread.)

I know laterals can be syllabic, but I'm a little confused as to
whether they can be considered vocalic or not. I recall reading
somewhere (but I don't remember where) that vowels cannot be lateral
(and laterals can't be vowels) because of the blockage of airflow
(which I suppose ties into the controversy over [+-cont]). But
laterals are also considered approximants, right? And approximants
AFAIK are very close to, if not quite, vocalic.

ObConlang: When I found the message saying laterals couldn't be
vowels, I was searching the web to see if lateral vowels existed,
because I had come up with the idea to use them in a conlang. The
sounds I had in mind were, instead of a simple /l=/, something like a
coarticulation of /l=/ and a vowel.

 > Eric:
 > <<
 > a. Why are some of these features in caps and some not?
 > b. Is [+-COR] coronal, [+-ant] anterior, and [+-DOR] dorsal?
 > c. Does / mean "or"?
 > d. What do the parentheses mean?
 > >>
 >
 > Regarding the rule: C[+COR, +ant/+DOR] > [(+COR) -ant] /_V[-back,
+ATR]
 >
 > This was my attempt to try to write my rule where velar and
 > alveolar consonants become palatal before a palatalizing vowel.
 > First, the vowels are [i] and [e], and they contrast with the non-
 > palatalizing vowels [1] and [E].  The vowels in Sidaan's vowel
 > inventory that are [-back, +ATR] are [i] and [e].  So that takes care
 > of that part.
 >
 > The features for "coronal" and "dorsal" are in caps, because they're
 > not binary features.  Technically, I think they're not even supposed
 > to have +'s or -'s in front of them.  Rather, you simply state (in
caps)
 > CORONAL, DORSAL, etc.  I shortened it, and added the plusses
 > for clarity/consistency.

Oh, I see.

 > The reason the parentheses are in this particular rule is that a +COR
 > consonant doesn't go to +COR; it just becomes -ant.  The +DOR
 > consonants become +COR.  Again, to make this maximally clear,
 > it should be stated in two separate rules, but then the
generalization
 > would be lost.

Ok.

[snip]
 > V[+high, -back] > ø / C_'CV...
 >
 > There are specific constraints on what the C's can be, but
essentially,
 > high vowels drop out in unstressed syllables between certain types
 > of consonants (among them, a fricative followed by a stop).  The
 > result is minimal pairs between velar/alveolar fricatives and palatal
 > fricatives.  The same goes for stops:

Sounds like a cool system!