Re: English syllable structure (was,for some reason: Re: Llirine: How to creat a language)

Cheng Zhong Su wrote:
> . . . Or we may say English define meaning in sentence
> while Chinese define meaning in words.
I will respond in my conlang, Gibberish.

gibber gibber gibber gibber gibber gibber gibber gibber gibber.

... whew: what with sandhi and the subjunctive inversions,
it's too much for my lazy brain.  Back to the drawing board.


> Then how many
> words does a Chinese speaker need to remember? Do they
> need more learning than English speaker? No absolutely
> not, they don't remember them all, they just remeber
> few thousands characters, and compose all the words by
> self. All the benefit come from 'tone'
You describe a benefit of productive compounding; it would be
no less effective if the roots were CVCV without tones.


ObCon:
My first conlang (if it ever happens) will probably be a descendant of
one modelled very loosely on Japanese, with roots of two syllables,
CV+CV+, where
        C = { zero, k, t, p, m, s, r }
        V = { i, e, a, o, u, wi, we, wa, ja, jo, ju }
        + = { nasal, long, plain }
But that ideal form is obscured in the descendant languages.


--
Anton Sherwood  --  http://www.ogre.nu/