Re: Question about Coda Restrictions

Dirk Elzinga wrote:
> I don't know if one is more common than the other. But neither is so
> uncommon that it would be out of place in a naturalistic constructed
> language. Of course, it's your language and you can do what suits you;
> you're in charge!
Okay. Thanks, I know. :)


> > b) Is there a natlang analogous to my system: any of /n S l/ in all codas
> > and any of /n S l x/ in word-final codas?
>
> From a typological point of view, it seems (to me) to be an odd collection
> for non-final and final codas. Are there other coronal consonants besides /n
> S l/? If so, it seems reasonable to allow them in coda position as well. Are
> there other velar consonants besides /x/?
The phoneme inventory is

/b d g ?/
/s S x/ (I have thought about replacing /s/ with /T/)
/m n/
/w l r j h/ (/w j/ might be the same two phonemes as /u i/)
/a u i e_o o_o @/

I want continuants only as codas. The /n/ in codas is a homorganic nasal, but
maybe I should have both /m n/ in word-final codas.


> Is /x/ a suffix? Having larger codas in English accommodates several
> kinds of inflectional and derivational suffixes (think of words like
> jump-ed or fif-th-s).
Well, it might be the onset of a suffix, or the coda of a diphonemic suffix.
The only monophonemic suffixes that might appear as codas are /w/ and /j/
when they merge with the vowel.

I don't plan to have more complex codas than semi-vowel + consonant.


David J. Peterson wrote:
> <<
> b) Is there a natlang analogous to my system: any of /n S l/ in all codas
> and any of /n S l x/ in word-final codas?
> >>
>
> Finding a natlang that has that inventory won't validate this
> system, just as not finding one won't invalidate it.  It all depends
> on how it came to be in your language.
It's not a diachronical conlang, so it all came out from my fingers :)


> In one of my languages, there's only one internal coda, a nasal
> homorganic to the following consonant.  For final codas, though,
> all coronals are allowed.  This results in /n/, /t/, /l/ and /s/.
> However, there was a sound change that affected all non-nasal,
> non-continuant coronals (here, I'm taking advantage of the fact
> that /l/ is sometimes +continuant, and sometimes -continuant,
> depending on who you ask).  It went something like this:
>
> *t > T / _#
> *l > K / _#
>
> I think [K] is a voiceless lateral fricative, right?
Yes.

> (nasal), even though you have a coronal inventory of /n/, /t/,
> /T/, /s/, and /l/ (and, I guess, /tS/ and /S/, but those are the
> result of /t/ and /s/ coming before /i/ and /j/).
Are coronals inherently more likely to appear as codas for some reason?

--
Veoler