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

At 11:51 12/01/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Christophe:
>
>I already love it: weird (mor)phonology, and classes (already tasty,
>whatever the updates), and writing system...
>
        Thank you, and welcome to the list, it finally worked, I told you :) .

>I'd only suggest one tip to make the explanation more transparent, and the
>system easier to evaluate.
>
>I'm a bit confused by deep and surface phonemes being lumped together in
>your description.
>
        I know, I'm confused too. The way I presented it is just a reflection of
the current confusion in which I am.

>Do you have any objections against arranging some material in a more
>generativist manner? I mean, first deep-level phonemes, then morphonological
>operations (sandhi or whatever name you prefer), then surface-level
>phonology as a system.
>
        I'd like that, but I'm not a linguist and I don't how it works exactly.
That's why I asked if someone could organize the system I described in a
more systematic way. If you feel able to help me about it, your help is
more than welcome.

>This way, everything can be checked separately.
>
>For example, I'd expect that gaps and bans in the surface phonology would
>form a logical and consequential system. For if they don't, there'll be a
>tendency to fill in the gaps and violate the bans (in borrowings,
>onomatopoeic words, new formations on analogy, etc). So surface forms will
>appear in the language that cannot be generated from any deep sequence,
>and you'll have to introduce special rules for re-analyzing such forms in
>order to enable normal derivation from them.
>
        The different gaps and bans seem pretty logical to me. They are just
complex and difficult to rank in my system. I'd have to make words and
their actual pronunciation to compare. The complexity of this sytem is
mainly due to the fact that words are generally pronounced differently
depending on the surrounding words. Those phenomena of liaison, elision,
assimilation, sandhi and whatever you call them are just unaware of the
word frontiers, except with the pause that appears between clauses and in
fact everywhere the speaker takes his breath :) .

>The rules might be presented as a set of expressions like (A+)BC(+D) -> EF,
>put in certain order. In a natlang the order would reflect the language's
>history (but usually not in all details). It seems that the first rule in
>your system would be about the syllabic/non-syllabic value of resonants - a
>natural transition from deep phonemes' combinatorics to the other
>operations.
>
        I agree. It seems to be the most important part of it. My problem is that
I have difficulties to rank the different operations in a simple way. I
have to work more about it...

>Deep phonology is the opposite of the surface one. The set of deep phonemes
>can be as asymmetrical as you wish, and their permitted sequences needn't
>to be pronounceable at all. If later you choose to set up a historical
>perspective for your language, you can always declare that some sounds
>merged or dropped out without any consequences for the synchronic
>description.
>
>I hope all this doesn't sound too confused...
>
        At least it's clearer than my phonology :) . So I ask again: if ayone has
the knowledge of such things and time to help me cleaning this phonological
system, you're more than welcome :) .

                                                        Christophe Grandsire
                                                |Sela Jemufan Atlinan C.G.

"Reality is just another point of view."

homepage : http://rainbow.conlang.org