Re: vowel scheme for new language

dunn patrick w wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 May 1999, dunn patrick w wrote:
>>
>> > Does this sound like a plausible vowel scheme?
>> >
>> > a -- low back
>> > e -- mid front
>> > i -- high front
>> > o -- round low back
>> > u -- round mid front
>>
>> If by "plausible" you mean "likely to occur in natural
languages",
>> I would have to say no.  Human languages prefer to have
'balanced'
>> vowel systems, e.g.:
>
>--snip--
>
>Well, that looks like a general consensus of "no way".  Hrmm.  I
noticed a
>tendency of it to run away from me anyway.  That damned /i/
insisted on
>showing up.
>
>> Or:     i     u
>>          e   o
>>            a
>
>What's a pity is I like this vowel scheme.  Always have.  But I'd
*hate*
>to use it since it's so damned common.  Conlang guilt, you know?
>
Since triangular vowel systems are quite common among conlangers,
why not work on a quadrangular vowel system instead? That is, a
system where there are just as many back vowels as front, and where
there are two low (open) vowels. In this way, you can have a rounded
vowel for every front - just like your proposed system. But unlike
your proposed system, the rounded ones would have to be back as
well, of course, to keep it naturalistic. Below are two examples:

  i     u
   e   o
    a Q


or


  i     u
  e     o
   E   O
    a Q

[where Q represents a low back vowel]

Both of the above examples can be augmented by adding a schwa /@/
and/or a few front rounded vowels. French is an example of a
language with a quadrangular system with a few front rounded vowels
(and some nasalized).

Just a suggestion,
-kristian- 8-)