Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: phonetic

From:# 1 <salut_vous_autre@...>
Date:Saturday, May 28, 2005, 5:02
Steven Williams wrote:

>--- # 1 <salut_vous_autre@...> schrieb: > > This is a question concerning the phonetic use of > > [e] > > > > I often meet that problem in my conlangs > > > > Is the sound [e] really possible to say before a > > consonant at the end of a word? > >Ee-yep. I manage it all the time with only minimal >difficulty, although I feel your pain; my L1's >American English, without a monophthongal [e] at all >:/. >
Yeah it must be harder! That is the dialect I learn also, but I had never noticed this fact before writing that question, I wanted an example of a verb ending in /e/ that would change into something else at past and realised that there were none...
> > Is it only the fact that I don't speak a language > > wich such a combinaison of sounds might occur in > > that makes I can't say it? Only because I'm not used > > to it? > >That's it. Since you don't speak a language that >allows [e] in closed syllables, favoring [E], you >naturally have trouble pronouncing them, just like I >had trouble holding pronouncing the front rounded >vowels and velar fricatives of German. > >German, actually, is a language that allows [e] in >closed syllables, although it's more like a length >thing than a tenseness or height thing. Minimal pairs >between [e] and [E], including the long occurences of >these vowels: > >[dEn] /denn/ 'then' >[den] /den/ 'the.masculine-singular.ACC' >["dE:m.lIC] /dämlich/ 'ladylike' >[de:nt] /dehnt/ 'extend.3sg' > >There are many other pairs where the opposition >between [E] and [e] is maintained, although some >dialects don't keep such a distinction and not many >will even notice if you confuse them. > > > I'd want to know because I always have that problem > > like now in Vbazi, I have the dual/paucal/plural > > suffixes that are only of one consonant but that I > > have to add at the end of words ending in /e/ (the > > only mid-close vowel) considering the fact that /E/ > > is phonemicly different and can't be used as a > > substitute > >Oh, no, it'd be fine. May be a little confusion in >everyday speech, though; you might want to make >allophones, like [&] for [E] in some environments or >something like that. Then again, the Swedish seem to >get along just fine with their freakishly high number >of vowels, so maybe there'll be no problem at all. > > > I tought using something else like /@/ or the > > diphtong /e@/ for replacement since they are not > > used, but I'd like to keep my vocalic inventory > > closed so that's why I want to ask if that > > restriction is something real in the language world > > or if it is only a caracteristic of the languages I > > speak, or worse, If that restriction doesn't exist > > and is only a phonetic illusion I think being > > hearing to. > >Here's how I handle it in my current conlang, Nem >(that's a _nasalized_ close-mid vowel, opposed to the >nasalized open-mid vowel, muhahahaa): the vowels [i] >(and the glide [j]) and [e] have an audibly >palatalizing effect on consonants, while vowels like >[1] and [E] do not. I can still hear the difference >between them just fine, but I choose to remove yet >another layer of ambiguity by forming strict vowel >harmony and allophony rules. > >For example, [E] often appears as [&] in open >syllables, something more evident by the fact that I >use /ae/ in transcription to represent it, a little >idea I co-opted from the McCune-Reischauer >transcription of Korean. So: > >/si/ [Si] >/seu/ [s1] >/se/ [Se] >/sae/ [s&] >/syae/ [S&] > >I also have remnants of vowel harmony that limit the >appearance of these phonemes in a given word. >Proto-Nem had a Maasai-style ATR harmony, which >collapsed like so: > >'tense vowels' >i -> i; e -> e; u -> u; o -> o > >'lax vowels' >I -> 1; E -> E/&; U -> 1; O -> V > >'neutral vowels' >a -> a > >So, [E] and [e] normally can't appear in the same >word. > >You could do something like this, with vowel harmony >and palatalization of consonants, if you really want >to not worry about pronouncing [e] in a closed syllable. >
Maybe a little too hard for me, I will probably find a simpler way like pronouncing a non-phonemic [?] and making the next consonant syllabic or adding a schwa or anything else that would not mean I'll have to review the whole language. But thanks, your commentaries really did help me - Max