Re: languages in reverse

stevo wrote:
> Recording an utterance and playing it backwards are only a test to
> determine
> how good the initial production is.  The goal is to treat reverse English
> (elsewhere called hsilngE) as a separate language, albeit one which is
> 1-to-1
> mappable to English.  I believe the mappability breaks down at units
> larger than a
> sentence.
Shouldn't it be called [SIlg'NI ~ SIlg'NI?] ? Surely it's not based on the
_spelling_ !!

To be really accurate, we'd have to pay attention to very minor allophonic
variants-- e.g. the final stressed [I] in [SIlg'N__] isn't really [I], nor
[i], but somewhere between the two.

IMO it will be a very strange "English", with lots of initial [N], final
[h], preaspiration of final vl.stops, and some daunting cons. clusters :-)))
And if it isn't really mappable beyond the sentence level, what's the point,
other than fun and tour-de-force-ism?

['5Ow@nO"4&s it"pmVd it"pmVh] --you get a coherent result by omitting the
p's but it isn't as correct :-)

['5Oftjer\g@"4&h it"pmVd it"pmVh]
['nEmzNIk@d"5O?dn& z@s'r\OhzNIk@D'5O?]
['nIg@?r\@D'Eg@ht it"pmVh tUhptn@"dUhk]

Reply