Re: Vocalic patterns & BrSc

On Wednesday 08 May 2002 00:21, Raymond Brown wrote:
> It seems to me that if I do adopt a Dirk-like 'Roman syllabary' in any
> reformed BrSc, I must chose between a 3x2 or a 2x2 distribution.  I am not
> persuaded that high (or even mid) central vowels are a "good thing" in an
> IAL; and the apparent rarity of the 3x2 pattern also dissuades me.  It
> seems the 2x2 pattern is is, or has been, more widespread, being found in
> both the new and old worlds.
        You neglected another option: 2x3. You coul go with the Old English pattern:
        /i/ ---- /u/
         |        |
        /e/ ---- /o/
         |        |
        /æ/ ---- /a/    Disadvantages: /æ/ (ae) is not a "popular" sound (hideous, IMO).
Possibilities: use /@/, making /a/ a font vowel, /@/ a back vowel. However,
no system that I'm familiar with does this. Or make /a/ a front vowel, and
/A/ a back vowel. Certainly possible.
        Or, you could go with a 3x3 system. :)
        /i/ - /1/ - /u/
        /e/ - /@/ - /o/
        /E/ - /a/ - /O/ Disadvantages: /1/, /E/, and /O/ are problamatic.

        There's an interesting PDF that claims to have some vowel universals at
http://www.bu.edu/linguistics/UG/course/lx500/handouts/LgUniv.2a.ColorsVowels.pdf.
Of course, right off the bat, it's wrong :) claiming that _all_ languages
have at least /i a u/. However, it makes the claim (Universal 9) that the
number of height distinctions is generally equal to or great than the number
of back distinctions. Hence, 2x3 is fine, but 3x2 is right out.
        Personally, I would favor
        /i/ ----- /o/
         |         |
         |         |
        /e/ ----- /a/
because you can turn it into a neat diamond, like so :
                /i/
                   /    \
                 /e/   /o/
                   \    /
                /a/
Plus, it avoids /u/, which I also have a similar distaste for (although not
as much as for /æ/ :)
        :Peter