Re: Yes, another sketch for a new conlang! [very very long!]

At 12:47 17/01/00 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Does this mean that you don't want *surface* sequences /#ma/, /#mo/, /#me/
>distinct from /#na/, /#no/, /#ne/ ?
>
>I didn't understand that, sorry. My impression was that your #5/5' implied
>something like #no#a- -> #mo#a-, with further elision -> /ma/ restoring
>the opposition on the surface level. Or did you mean "deep phonemic" when
>you wrote "only one phonemic nasal" ?
>
        I meant 'deep phonemic' in your acception. But with your critics, I was
able to re-order the rules that go from the "deep phonemic" structure to
the "surface" pronunciation, and the rule that gives the actual
pronunciation of phonemic /n/ is at the end of the cascade of rules.

>>
>>        I have to ask it again, nobody answered. Does anyone know what are
>the PoA
>>of the vowels a, e and o?
>>
>
>It seems to me that this does not matter, while you process the *deep*
>phonemes. At this stage you need not explain what your deep vowels were
>like phonetically in the language's prehistory, and can assume most weird
>ways of development. Maybe, only one thing worth mentioning: of the
>resulting surface nasals, /m/ and /n/ should probably be more *frequent*
>than others (/N_G/, /ñ/, or whatever you planned for).
>
        I see. Okay, I'll do pretty much what I want then :) .

>
>Again, my concern was in fact about surface phonetics/phoneme distribution.
>The ban for CLVL may seem unnatural (while CLV and CVL are permitted), as
>well as the ban for -iL and -uL (since IMO *on the surface level* /i/ and
>/u/ will work as vowels). But elision rules might fill all gaps (BTW,
>helping to save some deep-level distinctions from being lost altogether).
>
        Here again, I changed a little the rules, but I kept the fact that in
surface, you will never see anything more than C, CV, CL=, CLV, CVL and
CLL=. It's as natural as other languages which accept only CV syllables on
surface, or never CCC clusters (your problem looks like if I said, why in
this language is it impossible to pronounce CCC clusters whereas CC
clusters are pronounceable? The answer is simply: That's how the language is).

>>
>>>#3: Same question about Ci, Cu (with syllabic i, u).
>>
>>        Same answer, yes.
>
>Again, *surface* /i/ and /u/ look more like vowels, IMO...
>
        Yes, they may "look" like vowels, but as much as the other syllabic L's in
this language. There is no difference of quality between /i/ (syllabic /j/)
and /l=/ (syllabic /l/) in this language, even if /i/ is pronounced like a
vowel, it is not (due to the fact that it is in complementary distribution
with its non-syllabic counterpart). The feeling of the speaker is important
here. And if those syllabic /j/ and /w/ could evolve later into real
vowels, they are not in the stage of language I'm describing.

>>        Yep. The voiced version of k_C is g_J, and the voiced version of C
>is J
>>(voiced palatal fricative). I'm not sure if the convention I use is used in
>>any ASCII-IPA I know, but it seems best for me.
>
>Is this /J/ distinct from the non-syllabic /i/?
>
        /J/ is an affricate, /j/ is an approximant. /J/ has thus a more
"consonnantic" value.

>
>Actually, I meant that if you have, say, /r_j/ (not considered a cluster),
>then I'd also expect that the speakers can pronounce initial /Cr_j/ and
>/r_O_j/.
>
        But you can't have /r_j/, as /r/ and /j/ are both L's. I will post the new
rules with their order soon, and you will see more easily how it works. You
will also see that those rules create a surface phonetic distribution which
has not so many gaps as you thought there were (the only gaps appear very
often in natural languages, so I thought I could keep them).

>>
>>        That was my will to have voiced obstruents only as allophones of
>voiceless
>>ones. In the phonemic level, there is only one series of obstruents (just
>>like in Hawaian for instance).
>>
>
>My concern was that the system of distribution bans is complex, and
>therefore unstable.
>
        It looks complex, but in fact it's not. If you tried to explain as the
same kind of system the rules of liaison and elision in French, you would
arrive at a system even more complex than that (I know, I tried to do it
and it happened to be highly more complex than the system I presented for
my new project - its name will certainly be Itakian by the way :) - ), and
yet this system is very stable.

>E. g. you permit /adi/, /ajda/ and /ida/, but not /ada/. IMO, this is
>the type of bans that tend to be violated for various reasons - in
>borrowings and the like.
>
        But the type of bans I have are not like that, they were badly explained
but create a very stable phonetic distribution of phones.

>If a foreigner says 'My name is Dan', what do the speakers hear and
>repeat? /idan/ ? /udan/? /dijan/ ? /tan/ ? Compare with the situation
>in Japanese, with /F/, /t_s/, and /w/ becoming permitted before all vowels
>in borrowings (and thus opposed to /h/, /t/, and zero).
>
        In borrowings yes, but it didn't change the deep structure of Japanese,
and such things stay confined in borrowings and onomatopeia.

>Best,
>
>Basilius
>
>P.S. I've read your post about tones. It appears that you like complex
>things (me too :) ). The Bantu influence becomes more pronounced... Was
>it Rwanda ;)?
>
        Indeed, I was very much inspired by the tonal systems of African
languages. I'll present it in my next post, with the right system of rules
:) .

                                                        Christophe Grandsire
                                                |Sela Jemufan Atlinan C.G.

"Reality is just another point of view."

homepage : http://rainbow.conlang.org