Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Representing Boreanesian (was: Re: quantity triggered vs. quantity sensitive stress

From:Kristian Jensen <kljensen@...>
Date:Wednesday, December 9, 1998, 23:19
And Rosta wrote:

>A belated reply, but I think not repeating what was in other >messages in the follow-up thread, >
Thanks for the reply, And. Lumanesian is presently undergoing a reform and is now called Boreanesian. Several elements of the language remain the same. The only change is where stress is located now - no longer penultimate but ultimate. I'll explain in more detail what the changes, but first, I have kept what I have written previously so that others can see the changes:
>> The situation is quite different in Lumanesian. It appears that >> stress is what triggers a heavy syllable and not the other way >> around. The reason for this is that, unlike quantity sensitive >> stress languages, stress in Lumanesian lexemes is consistently >> penultimate (with the exception of monosyllabic lexemes). >> Furthermore, this stressed syllable is consistently a heavy CVC >> syllable (whereas light syllables are CV only). Stressed CVC >> syllables can appear in three forms depending on which of the >> three tones are used. These are: >> >> CV? - creaky tone, heavy syllable ending in a glottal stop or >> glottalized sonorant. >> CVH - level tone, heavy syllable ending in a glottal fricative >> or a voiceless sonorant. >> CVX - falling tone, heavy syllable with a long vowel or ending >> in a voiced sonorant. >> >> The result is that all words must have one of the three >> possible stressed syllable forms. Furthermore, stressed heavy >> syllables vary in the coda depending on the tone used. All in >> all, words without a heavy syllable cannot exist. Does this >> appear natural? >
> >> I'm also not sure if this is a segmental feature alone or a >> prosodic/suprasegmental feature that applies to whole words. >> Perhaps it is both (if that's at all possible). In any case, >> I'm sort of stumped when it comes to representing this >> orthographically. If word stress is almost consistently >> penultimate and stressed syllables consistently heavy, do I >> still have to represent the coda of stressed syllables to mark >> them as heavy (and thereby also stressed)? I was thinking that >> the type of the coda represented in the orthography could be >> used to mark the tone of the word since they are directly >> related. It just seems gluttonous to overrepresent something >> that is already consistent when tone alone can easily be >> represented by diacritics. > >By my reading of your description of Lumanesian, it looks as if >there is a word-level property whereby a word is "+?", "+H", or >"+X", which means that the penultimate syllable is either CV?, >CVH or CVX.
Boreanesian is now stressed in ultimate position, and it is this ultimate syllable (a.k.a. the major syllable - following Mon-Khmer conventions) that is still consistently heavy (or CVX). So instead of the previously CVXCV structure, Boreanesian lexeme structure is now C@CVX. Like Lumanesian however, this major CVX syllable still appears in one of the three forms described for Lumanesian. That is, they can appear in one of the three possible tones/registers: falling-creaky, level-aspirate, falling-modal. Schematically, this is: C@CV?, C@CVH, and C@CVX.
>Orthographically, then, you need a three-way distinction that is >located in some (ideally unambiguous) position on the >orthographic word (e.g. initially, finally, or on the penult >itself). The distinction nnedn't be marked on the penult if (i) >it is marked elsewhere, and (ii) there is some independent way of >delimiting orthographic words. If one knew the overall >distribution of CV?, CVH and CVX syllables it might be easier to >choose between alterntive orthographic solutions.
I have chosen to mark this in the final position. This is an ideally unambiguous position now that I'm representing all minor syllables as Ce-. Here is how: Words with a creaky tone (i.e., a heavy syllable ending in a glottal stop or glottalized sonorant) is marked by writing the symbol for a glottal stop "'" at the end. E.g.: "sal'" [sal<?>], "peya'" [pja?], "kan'" [ka~N<?>], "keluy'" [kluj<?>]. Words with a level tone (i.e., a heavy syllable ending in a glottal fricative or a voiceless sonorant) is marked by "h" at the end. E.g.: "nalh" [nal<o>], "kenuyh" [k@nuj<o>], "telah" [t@lah]. Words with a falling tone (i.e., a heavy syllable with a long vowel or ending in a voiced sonorant) is unmarked - although long vowels are written double to indicate heavy syllables without a consonantal coda. E.g.: "pal" [pal], "pe'aa" [p@?aa], "meney" [m@n@j].
> >A comparison with Livagian may be of interest [especially to you, >because the two conlangs that currently most remind me of >Livagian are Lumanesian and Lojban].
Is the common "L" a coincidence in all these languages?
>Basically a phonological word in Liv contains exactly one non- >low-tone (either H or HLH) syllable, and any low-tone sylls that >precede it in the word can only have the vowel /oj/ (which in >that pretonic position is subject to additional phonotactic >constraints not relevant here). I have three different >orthographic solutions for the 3 different scripts used to write >Livagian. >"syllabary": orthographic words are not delimited, and tone is > represented as part of the syllable grapheme. >"Livagian alphabet": tone is marked at the start of the > orthographic word (which is delimited only in this way), and > low-tone /oj/ is not written. >Roman alphabet: orthographic words are preceded by spaces, non- > low tone is marked on vowels, low-tone /oj/ is not written. > >The Roman alphabet could be used in the same way as the Livagian >alphabet, but the point of using the Roman alphabet is to try to >conform to more international orthographic conventions. >
I have plans to indicate tone in the Boreanesian syllabary through the graphemes indicating the coda themselves. Other symbols represent C@ syllables. The @ can modified by these coda graphemes, similar to how Indic scripts modify the inherent "a" in their consonants by adding super/sub-scripts. Regards, -Kristian- 8-)