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
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,
>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
>"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.