Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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

From:Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>
Date:Tuesday, January 18, 2000, 12:07
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