Re: Phonology-Realistic?
| From: | vehke <vaksje@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Wednesday, October 20, 2004, 9:12 |
|---|
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 04:00:26AM -0400, Yann Kiraly wrote:
> I would like to know if the following phonology, which I want to use ina
> conlang, is realistic and could occur in a natlang:
> (all signs are CXS):
>
> x,N,z,s,Z,j,v,b,d,g,l,m,n,T,a,i,u,O:,O,o,E:,E,o:,a:,i:,u:
>
> I would appreciate any replies.
Methinks it is naturalistic (realistic) on the condition that you
explain the dissymmetry (through diachronical sound change, for
example):
There's the unvoiced-voiced pair /s, z/, yet we find only voiced /Z/,
only unvoiced /T/, a voiced /v/, yet no /f/, etc.
How did this phonology develop?
In a natural language, this phonetic/phonemic inventory would be
realistic (duh), yet you might want to justify how the various
dissymmetries came to be. (That is not to say that all ancestor
languages start out with a symmetrical phonetic inventory, yet for the
purposes of justifying these phonemes, it comes in handy.)
€0,02
--
vehke.