Re: OT: What makes a good conlang? (was Re: Super OT: Re: CHAT: JRRT)

This has been an extremely interesting thread, though for various reasons I
haven't put in my 2cents..... Anyhow, with ref. to Ebisedi----

Teoh wrote:


> > > Now as far as Ebisédian phonology is concerned, it is strange not
because
> > > of the presence of off-the-wall sounds, but because it has an overly
> > > consistent set of sounds. It has the full range of velars, dentals,
and
> > > labials (voiced/unvoiced fricatives, nasal, voiced/unvoiced/aspirated
> > > stops) and an almost full range of postalveolar affricates, plus [l]
and
> > > [r`].
> >
Jörg Rhiemeier (I think) wrote:
> > My Old Albic system, then, is perhaps also a bit too regular:
> >
> >   p  t  k
> >   b  d  g
> >   m  n  N
> >   f  T  x
> >      s     h
> >   w  r  j
> >      l
> >
> > But at least, /s/, /l/ and /h/ stick out, and the semivowels do not
> > fit their positions perfectly....
as they often do.

so I think it is OK to have it in a
> > naturalist artlang.  I have seen natlang systems which are just
> > as regular.
>
> Well, Ebisédian's system seems in retrospect obviously contrived:
> G  x  N  g  k  k_h
> D  T  n  d  t  t_h
> Z  S     dZ tS tS_h
> z  s        l  r`
>         B  P  m  b  p  p_h
>
> And also:
> h  H  w
>
> plus other "smooth" onsets (I'm still unsure how to represent these in
> IPA).
OK-- the point of this reply.  Your Sound system looks odd only in the way
it is presented.  If you put it into the more conventional format, it
becomes quite ...._usual_---

p  t  tS k  (or p t c k )
ph th tSh kh  (ph th ch kh)
b d dZ g     (b d j g)
m n     N
P T S x
B D Z G
w l r
     s         h
     z         H

probably the only real oddity, in typological terms, is the lack of a
palatal glide [j];  also I'm not sure what "H" represents, but from a later
comment, I gather it's a voiced counterpart of /h/...........

and I'm not sure where to put the "onsets" either-- isn't there a contrast
in initial position between [?] and [smooth i.e. 0?]

Reply