> [mailto:CONLANG@listserv.brown.edu] On Behalf Of Jim Henry
> If you have distinct superlative and comparative (I do without
> a morphological distinction in gzb, letting context
disambiguate),
> wouldn't you need four tone contours, for
most/more/less/least? -- and
> maybe a fifth tone contour for equality comparison (as X as
Y)?
Yes, there could maybe be a flat 33 for "equal" or "same".
> > Now for consonants. I could have maybe four articulations
points:
> > labial, alveolar, velar, and uvular. Each will have a
stops,
>
> Why not palatal? I find palatal consonants a good deal easier
> to pronounce than uvular, and they sound to my ear more
> distinct from alveolar consonants than velar do from uvular.
> Retroflexes are a bit harder, but still easier than uvular,
though
> I'm not sure they sound distinct enough from palatals and
> alveolars to pack them all in to the same engelang.
Palatization will be a separate feature. I have to organize it
in a manner where the function of a particular property doesn't
get lost somewhow.
>
> > fricatives, implosives, clicks. Then figure in voicing,
aspiration
>
> But not nasals or approximants? Interesting.
Nasality could disrupt the usage of voicing, but it's still a
possibility. I'm not sure I could fit approximants into the
scheme.
> > and palatization just for a start. Given enough options, I
could
>
> OK, so palatal consonants would occur as palatalizations of
> the velars or alveolars...? Consider labialization as well.
Labialization wouldn't work well when we already have labial
consonants like /p b P B/ and maybe /m/. Glottalization maybe?
I'm just sort of "thinking aloud" right now. I still have some
planning to do before I start piecing together a language, even
if it's a humanly impossible one.