Re: Aelya Phonology

FFlores wrote:

> >What do ya think?
>
> It seems you've worked a lot on it! Looks quite good
> to me. The only critic I have is to the way you describe
> orthography and phonology in a mixed fashion (e. g. you
> say there are geminate consonants in word-final position
> and then you add 'orthographically'!). For a clearer
> description, you should keep both things apart. The use
> of <y> as both /@/ and /j/ is not a good idea if you ask
> me, unless your oym uses an equivalent letter for both
> sounds too; it may not be so confusing to the reader,
> but it complicates the description of the phonology
> (you're forced to clarify over and over "when it's a
> consonant", "when it represents the schwa", etc.
>
        You're right. I REALLY need to separate orthography and phonology. I
also think I should just detail each sound in a list - that should
clarify lots.
        Also, the gemination rule SHOULD be orthographic AND phonetic:
        pata [pa:tha] vs. patta [patta]

        At least, the idea is that the geminate consonant spans two syllables,
with onset in one, and completion in the other.
        As to y, it IS the same latter in both transliteration and oym. I need
to address this one better. Here's a simple breakdown of y, because I'm
not exactly sure of how to address certain features - they're not
totally allophonic. Anyway, the explanation:
        Y can be:
        - indication of palatization (after C before V): Aelya [Alja]
        - ind. of syllabification (before C): oym [o'm] 2 syllables
        - schwah: syr 'swine' [s@r]


> First you should describe the phonology, in terms of
> sounds, syllable structure, etc.; and then the orthography,
> in terms of letters, referring back to the phonology when
> needed (e. g. when you want to explain an orthographical
> convention by mentioning a phonological change which took
> place in past stages of the language.) In the simplest
> case, the orthography's description could be no more than
> a simple mapping of sounds into letters as a list of
> rules.
>
        This is what I'll do. Thanks for the help!


> A minor pick also: you might use the IPA for the initial
> chart of sounds, then explain the non-English sounds and
> non-straightforward IPA symbols. Either that, or you avoid
> IPA altogether.
>
        Good point. Again separating phonology and orthography.

        Thanks!!

        Aidan