NATLANG: alien sounds in interjections (was: new Unnamed Conlang)

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:27:01 +0200, Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:54:10 -0400, J. 'Mach' Wust
><j_mach_wust@...> wrote:
>> we use ['?m=?m=] or ['?@?@] for negation and [?m='hm=] or [?@'h@] for
>> affirmation even though our words can't have [m=], [?], or stressed [@].
>
>No [?]? Interesting; I thought this was a fairly universal German thing.
It's not. Not even Swiss standard German has the glottis stop, so that
|Spiegelei| 'fried egg' and |Spiegelei| 'reflection' are homophonous
(except for the major stress). I'm not quite sure of it, but I suspect that
all over the southern part of the German-speaking area, there's no glottis
stop. Likewise, southern phoneticians will tend to exclude the glottis stop
from the German phoneme system (but include /E:/).

>And I also have [m=] in words such as |geben| ["ge:bm=].
Because of the alemannic n-apokope, there's no n in endings. There's few
cases of /@m/-ending, but as far as I know, it has always a distinct schwa.

=======================================================

John Cowan wrote (Fri, 17 Sep 2004 17:37:50 -0400):

>J. 'Mach' Wust scripsit:
>
>> We use ['?m=?m=] or ['?@?@] for negation and [?m='hm=] or [?@'h@] for
>> affirmation even though our words can't have [m=], [?], or stressed [@].
>
>These are also used in American English and in Scots and Scottish English.
>AFAIK they are not common in the English of England, though not altogether
>unknown there either.
Interesting.

>However, I at least say the first affirmative form with a voiceless
>nasal rather than ['h]; the lips remain closed throughout.
Yes, that's a more description. I thought of it, but then I couldn't think
of a short way of writing a glottis stop coarticulated with a voiceless
[m_0].

g_0ry@_^s:
j. 'mach' wust