Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Ramyo translation

From:Muke Tever <alrivera@...>
Date:Sunday, November 4, 2001, 0:06
From: "Yoon Ha Lee" <yl112@...>
>On Friday, November 2, 2001, at 10:21 , Muke Tever wrote: > >> Ramyo (aka Daimyo) is still a very infant-stage language. >> >Hey, conlangs all have to start somewhere, right? > >BTW, random humorous note: since Daimyo looks Japanese, I find myself >thinking of ramen when I see ramyo (especially since in Korean it's >ramyeon).
>> I just now have invented a rather clumsy orthography that can handle all >> its >> consonants. >> >Clumsy, hell. I like your pitch markers. They're quite easy to remember >(especially as someone who doesn't speak a tone language).
Well, you haven't seen quite the whole thing ;p Basic consonants: Lab Dent Retrfl Pal Velr Glot Stops: p b t d t. d. c j k g q Nasals: pm m tn n t.n n. cn jn kn gn Frics: ph bh v th dh s sh s. z. ch jh kh gh hh Other stuff: {rh} /r/ (trill) {r} /4/ (tap) (lz} /K\/ (the voiced of that 'll' sound) {w.} /w`/ (rounded retroflex approximant) {y} /j/ {w} /w/ {l} /l/ (clear l) {lh} /5/ (dark l) Vowels (double for long): i /i/ u /u/ ö /2/ õ /7~/ o /o/ e /E/ ä /&/ a /a/ Pitch marks: + high - low ^ falling ~ rising # long high = long low I'm not sure if those last two pitch marks are necessary, but they're there (I got the idea for # and = as doubled plus and minus signs from that 'phono' program...) Also I'm divided between using pitch marks in regular text or only in special circumstances. It might be possible to get away with spelling {lz} as just {z}. Possibly I might make {hh} [h] spelled {qh} instead. The after-dots in the retroflexes are ideally under-dots, although they'll probably be underlines for convenience. The reason why things like "gn" instead of the maybe-more-intuitive "ng" is, I was thinking of that lang that had to differentiate stuff like initial /N/ with prenasalized /g/ and had stuff like {ng'}, and I didn't quite like that. Initial stop-nasal clusters aren't allowed in Ramyo, so I can get away with spelling them that way. {s} and {sh} voice between other voiced segments, but that probably won't be represented orthographically.
>> Interlinear mit notes: >> {qoo} /?o:/ and several other affixes have no phonemic pitch, but get it >> "inferred" from the surrounding--in this case, because it's a long vowel >> following a high pitch, it becomes falling pitch {pi+rqoo^} /pi4?o:/. >> >> gnR-gnR-.jhä >> our .dry .sick .NMLZR >> ><intrigued look> What are the general rules for how the pitch gets >inferred from the previous one? You give the one example :-) so I'm >wondering about other rules.
Ok... If it can do so without breaking other constraints, an unpitched syllable will just inherit the ending pitch of the previous syllable: /la+la/ > [la+la+] /la-la/ > [la-la-] /la^la/ > [la^la-] /la+la-la/ > [la+la-la-] /la-la+la/ > [la-la+la+] /la+la:/ > [la+la^] If doing this would break the rule that you can't have the same pitch more than twice in a row, it'll take the other pitch instead: /la+la+la/ > [la+la+la-] /la-la-la/ > [la-la-la+] /la~la+la/ > [la~la+la-] This is opposed to the behavior of a prepitched syllable, which must keep its pitch, and will lengthen to accomodate it: /la+la+la+/ > [la+la+la:~]... If an unpitched syllable is between prepitched syllables, ... it *may* have to do the accomodative lengthening--/la-la-lala+la+/ would be /la-la-la:^la+la+/, though I don't see how that would arise--but otherwise an unpitched syllable will try to keep its original length, and will not affect the length or pitch of neighboring syllables.
>> {R} here is just a notation saying that this vowel is unspecified and >> must be >> filled in by the next vowel (in this case the {ä} in {jhä-ndhi+} /j\&nDi/ >> , so: >> {gnägnäjhä...} >> >Oh, nice. What a neat idea!
>> ({me} is the main nominalizer for class VII roots like {qu-g-d}... {qoo} >> is for >> class II roots like {p+r}. Class II is mainly verbs, and Class VII >> appears to >> be states and condtions of the body, and also smells for some reason) >> >(Muke, this *so* doesn't sound like an infant-stage conlang to me. <G> >Perhaps that's because my idea of infant-stage is a phonology with hardly >any grammar and no morphology!)
Well, maybe a better metaphor would be a 500-piece puzzle... I have all these pieces laid out, but I'm still figuring out how to put them together and I don't quite know what the picture will look like. Indeed, basically all Ramyo is right now is phonology with hardly any grammar ;) Too, a lot of these things are inherited from older versions of this lang (which like this one never were very complete themselves...) Probably the oldest part still surviving intact is the idea of the fill-vowel {R} in prefixes. The phonology and the native orthography are pretty old also, but have had some additions and subtractions--originally there were also series of aspirated stop, affricate, and prenasalized stop phonemes... and there were no v, hh, q, or anything on the 'other stuff' list besides y and an l (not sure which).... etc. *Muke!