Once more into the breach

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
language conceptually/grammatically.

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
[o˞].

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?

Hmmm...
--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>

Reply