Once more into the breach
|From:||Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>|
|Date:||Friday, July 13, 2007, 19:35|
Hm. Maybe I should name the language /britS/...
So, while entertaining the phonology changes from that other thread,
I'm also interested in possibly reinventing the whole thing from the
ground up, starting with the attested names and nothing else. I will
almost certainly not be using the name "Okaikiar" for any such
reinvented version of the language, however much it may owe to that
Of course, given my inherent inability to leave things the hell enough
alone, I changed the names again. No more [ŋ] (sorry, Roger) or [ɹ]
or corresponding rhotacizations in the vowels; <Dankar> is now
pronounced ['dænkaɾ], a nice (to me) sounding compromise between the
original ['dæŋ.ka˞ɹ] and my "Spanishized" version ['dan.kaɾ].
Similarly, <Tysor> is now [tʰaɪ.soɾ]; it was never really a [ɔ˞]
anyway, since it turns out that my vowel in -OR is much closer to
That gives attested phones of [a], [æ], [d], [eɪ], [k], [l], [m], [n],
[o], [ɾ], [s], [tʰ], [z], and [ə].
There was some chatter in the other thread about what, if anything, we
can infer about other unattested phones (say, under the assumption
that they're all phonemic); given this new list, what is the result?
Presumably if there's an [e] there must be an [i] and [u].
Could it be significant that the [k] is not aspirated while the [t]
is? (Of course, it's really because the [k] is medial and the [t] is
initial, but work with me, here.) Could it perhaps be related to the
fact that [d] is attested but [g] is not?
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>