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

On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 13:07:45 +0100, Christophe Grandsire
<Christophe.Grandsire@...> wrote:
<...>
>>
>>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).

IMO, it's a bit different. Imagine another foreigner insisting that her
name is Claire (let her be French, clearly pronouncing the final /R/).
If the language allows /kle-/ and /-er/, it seems that nothing prevents
the speakers from pronouncing /kler/.

I read in some paper that the Chinese (speaking Putonghua) can easily
pronounce syllables like *yai* which cannot appear in native words (while
indeed, they have no way to record such syllables in the traditional
writing). The reason is that both ya- and -ai are possible.

On the other hand, it seemed to me that surface sequences of that kind must
be generated by the elision. What do you obtain from kle#'er ?

But I agree it's O.K. with iL and uL. This simply means that on the
surface no sequences like -iL and -uL are permitted in the end of a
syllable. This ban looks plausible.

>>>        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.
Affricate or fricative?

I forgot to ask: is j_O different from ç < xj ? (I can imagine that, but
I'd like it clearly stated).

>>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).
O.K., now I see how it works!

>>>        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).
IMO, Hawaiian (Tahitian, and the like) are not a good example. When you
have less than 10 consonants and no clusters at all, the system can be
very asymmetrical, and individual gaps in distribution need no special
justification. But in richer consonant systems both sounds and
distribution gaps tend to form rows, and gaps not justified by the whole
system are often filled in.

My concern was not about the absence of the opposition, but rather about
too complex distribution of allophones, which AFAIK tend to phonematize
in such cases.

> its name will certainly be Itakian by the way :)
Congrats! Now I know what we're talking about ;) !

>>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.
I'm really curious to see what the distribution rules will look like!

>>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, <...>

Most borrowings are nouns, or verbs with the standard -zuru/-suru suffix.
So their stems do not undergo any changes, as Japanese noun morphology
is very transparent.

The situation in Itakian, with its complex morphonology, may be different.
Regular derivation should work for borrowings as well... but this partly
depends on how the morphology is designed.

>and such things stay confined in borrowings and onomatopeia.
For Japanese, "confined" does not seem the right word...

A bit earlier it experienced a similar story with /p/, and at a still
earlier stage, it acquired word-initial voiced obstruents and /r/ the same
way. Plus a lot of sounds that *mainly* appear in borrowings (final /N/,
palatalized, etc.). All these now appear in huge number of morphemes,
including pronominal stems, numerals, productive affixes, and so on.

Most European languages are no better, though. Quite usual thing, in fact.
But not necessarily applicable to Itakian ;).

Best wishes,
Basilius