Re: At last, an 'official' (but far from complete) page on Tech

Hi!

Danny Wier <dawiertx@...> writes:
>...rhotic...
Thanks for all the clarifications.  I never heard a Czech r-caron, so I
should probably try to find some docu and sound files.

> Also, the voiceless uvular stop is optionally ejective, but is not
> written with an apostrophe.
Hmm, an uvular ejective sound quite different from the pulmonic
version to my ear.  I find i much more complicated to pronounce, too.
Further, the Georgian /q'/ gets easily affricated.  Did you think
about making it phonemic instead of allophonic?  I find it so
different from plain [q].

> >   - a with ring above is probably [o], right?
>
> [Q] more precisely, analogous to Scandinavian a-ring. Again the fake IPA
> usage. Another letter I could've used is Greek lowercase alpha.
Ok, then I got it wrong since in Swedish, a with ring is [o], not [Q].

> > Can you pronounce that language fluently? :-)
>
> I've practiced pronouncing all these exotic sounds a lot, but since the
> language is still being developed, all I can do is pronounce meaningless
> words, just to get some idea of what it might sound like.
:-)  I'm very interested in the sound samples of your first poem! :-)

As I mentioned in other postings, I (thought I) managed to pronounce
all ~800 phonemes of my S4 between two [a]s, but it was impossible to
pronounce even the shortest word.  Even with the much simpler S7, I am
an deep trouble.  However, I see light at the end of the tunnel of S7.
Hopefully I can manage that, I regularly dream of sound samples of
conlang texts on my website.

S7 only has 40 consonant phonemes compared to >200 of Tech, so I'm
really interested in how fuent you will get in Tech. :-)

Speak of which, I find [t_>@q_>] *quite* hard to pronounce. :-)

Just noticing: there's the /q'/ phoneme in that name, no?

> It'll just have shorter words than Inuit. A better comparison might
> be Northwest Caucasian.
I am frightened after having caught a glimpse of a description of
Georgian verbs...

**Henrik