----- Original Message -----
From: Geoff Horswood <geoffhorswood@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: Proboscidean phonology
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 21:46:45 +0200, Rodlox <Rodlox@...> wrote:
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Geoff Horswood <geoffhorswood@...>
> >To: <CONLANG@...>
> >Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 2:48 PM
> >Subject: Proboscidean phonology
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > would the ultrasound from the (forehead?) be a consonant or a vowel?
> >*curious*
> Isn't it _infra_sound rather than ultrasound?
don't think so.
(the key word there is in the middle).
I think bats use infrasound, and whales (and those machines that let
mothers see inside their womb) use ultrasound.
I may be wrong, though.
> I seem to recall something
> about elephants producing sounds too _low_ for the human ear to perceive.
> Maybe that's part of the tonal system? 3 tonal registers: high, low and
> infrasound?
> > just a thought, but why not keep the "fingers" normal...and have
> >object-manipulations be joint efforts between two or more individuals?
> I like it. I don't like the picture conjured up in my head that a forked
> trunk gives (a la fithp, in John's suggestion), but I think I will give
> them slightly more adept "fingers", maybe 4, a little proportionally
longer
> than those of an Indian Elephant, but not so much so that they become more
> like tentacles.
>
> Then they'd probably base their numeral system on a base-4 system
> (elephants' toes not being of enough size or dexterity to count well- you
> can't fold them down or open them out as you count).
well, when an animal walks on its tip-toes, great toe dexterity goes out
the window.
:)
>