Re: Tit'xka (Pretty Long Post)

Eric Christopherson wrote:

> > Other than that, what do you think of it?  I'm interested to see how =
quickly
> > you guys can massacre "my precious". :)
>
> So you were SERIOUS about wolf-sized tarantulas? :) It looks really
> neat and harsh-sounding, but I also wondered about the vowels. Does
> anyone know if the system of /a/ /i/ /I/ /@/ is anatomically
> plausible?
Sure, it's possible, and probably exists somewhere.  The question is nots=
o much whether
it's possible, but whether it's typologically a good thing.
In his case, actually, it might be better to ask also whether you would w=
ant
to make it typologically _un_common so as to highlight the alienness of i=
t.
Since they're _his_ creations, though, only he can tell us whether any gi=
ven
system is anatomically possible, or probable.

> I was just wondering the other day, "are there any languages without
> either /o/ or /u/, or without either /e/ or /i/?"
 As for human languages, though, there certainly are.  But a system is no=
t
so much likely to lack /o/ and /u/, which are both back vowels (central a=
nd high
respectively), but rather /i/ and /u/ (both high vowels), and have /e/ an=
d /o/,
or the other way around (which would then be like Gothic). Almost all lan=
guages
have at least

i        u
    a

But much more common is to add a second distinction like

i        u
e       o
    a

After that, predicting commonalities is more difficult.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Tom Wier <twier@...>
ICQ#: 4315704   AIM: Deuterotom
Website: <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
"Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."

"S=F4=F0 is gecy=FEed / =FE=E6t mihtig God manna
cynes / w=EAold w=EEde-ferh=F0."
 _Beowulf_, ll. 700-702
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D