Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: THEORY: language and the brain [Interesting article]

From:Chris Bates <christopher.bates@...>
Date:Wednesday, July 2, 2003, 8:37
Its pretty bad! Lets list the faults: Irregular stress (is that a
problem for people whose L1 has regular stress, Christophe? anyone?) A
massive number of vowel sounds (although less than some of the other
Germanic Languages I think) which must be pretty hard to master for
someone whose L1 has the more normal 3 - 5 ish vowel system. Quite a few
consonant clusters which must be pretty hard if you have an L1 which is
mostly CVCV... like Japanese for instance (although nowhere near as bad
as Georgian I agree). Quite a large number of consonants as well
compared to some languages, the most difficult to learn are probably T
and D by people whose L1 doesn't contain them admittedly. I remember
once I was in France with a girl called fritha... her name was
unpronouncable to everyone except the local school english teacher.
 Although when you think of it esperanto is as bad if we're looking at
phonology... I don't think I'd try to design the next international
language even if I wanted to be an auxlanger because to be honest making
a language which is easy to use takes all the fun out of it.

>Quoting Chris Bates <christopher.bates@...>: > > > >>I've been thinking about it and I've found more examples of >>contrasting >>s and z than I expected, but I still think its a less important >>distinction than pronouncing T different from f and t, and D different >>from d or v. I'm often amazed that people can learn to speak english >>as >>well as they can, thinking of the number of new sounds speakers of >>some >>languages have to learn to distinguish. I think that english is >>probably >>very badly chosen as an international language given the large number >>of >>sounds it uses... I'm not sure what would be as acceptable and better >>though (after all, most people like english because they, or their >>teachers, think it will be useful for business purposes). >> >> > >I think the first thing English needs is a human-readable orthography! :-) > >But English's phonemic inventory isn't to terrible, is it? Sure, it's got [T] >and [D], and a messy vowel system, but it could be so much worse. It could've >had a couple dozen clicks, or full series of velarized and palatalized >consonants, four-way voicing and aspiration contrasts, or umpteen distinctive >contour tones with massive tone sandhi. Or all of that combined with Georgioid >consonant clusters and full complements of nasalized and creaky-voiced vowels. >And phonemic voiceless nasals. > > Andreas > > >

Replies

Ian Spackman <ianspackman@...>
Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>
Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>