|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
>[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
> 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:
>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:
>i -> i; e -> e; u -> u; o -> o
>I -> 1; E -> E/&; U -> 1; O -> V
>a -> a
>So, [E] and [e] normally can't appear in the same
>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
But thanks, your commentaries really did help me