Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Futurese

From:Andreas Johansson <and_yo@...>
Date:Wednesday, May 1, 2002, 13:53
Well, there's variety of points below I wouldn't subscribe to, but I've also
got one major objection; the survey you refer to counts languages, not
speakers.

                                                 Andreas

>From: Javier BF <uaxuctum@...> >Reply-To: Constructed Languages List <CONLANG@...> >To: CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU >Subject: Futurese >Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 19:16:33 -0400 > >Well, here you are the first part of those promised justifying >comments to the phoneme chart: > > > c) PHONOLOGY > > > > Josef said: > > > > Dear Javier, > > As you know some sounds are difficult in some countries. As you know > > (you speak Spanish) Spaniards find it hard to say a "V" they say "B" > > instead. The Chinese find it hard to say "R" they might say "L". It > > seems the Japanese have the opposite problem. Using tones in words is > > difficult for most Europeans, but not for the Chinese...and so on. > > There will not be many sounds left if you consider that some sounds > > are difficult... or you have some difficult sounds instead, who are > > going to be the victims? ... > > > > And I replied: > > > > Dear Josef, > > > > I clearly see your point, but it seems also that you have already > > noticed that if you start considering local habits of pronounci- > > ation there won't be many sounds left to choose from. And at this > > point, I'm sure the following data will serve to clarify the > > question. > > > > Several years ago, The University of California, Los Angeles Phono- > > logical Segment Inventory Database, made a famous linguistical sur- > > vey (known in short as the UPSID survey) in which they analyzed the > > phoneme systems of 317 languages, chosen so as to include one repre- > > sentative member from every main language grouping recognized. The > > results showed that the following were the most frequently encount- > > ered consonant sounds: > > > > Lab. Dent./Alv. Pal. Vel. Glot. > > Ocl. p / b t / d k / g ' > > Affr. ch > > Fric. f s sh h > > Nas. m n ñ ng > > Liq. l / r > > Aprox. j w > > > > It was also found that the language with more sounds was !Xu, of > > the Khoisan family of Southern Africa, with 141 sounds (95 conso- > > nants and 46 vowels). On the opposite side, the language with the > > lesser number of sounds was that of the Rotokas of the Pacific Is- > > lands, with an extremely poor sound system of only 11 segments. > > But between those extremes, 70% of the languages used between 20 > > and 37 sounds, with an average of 22.8 consonants and 8.7 vowels. > > Among the consonants, the majority used between 5 and 11 oclusiv- > > es, 1 and 4 fricatives, 2 and 4 nasals, and 4 others. Among the > > oclusives, 99% used at least 3 points of articulation: bilabial, > > dental/alveolar and velar. Some languages as Hawaiian didn't dis- > > tinguish between /t/ and /k/, while others, such as those of the > > Australian aborigenes, distinguished up to 6 points of articul- > > ation. 92% of the languages used voiceless oclusives and 67% also > > voiced ones. Then 29% use aspirated, 16% voiceless glottalized > > and 11% voiced implosive oclusives. In the realm of fricatives, > > 93% of the languages used at least one (excluding from this the > > /h/), and this was usually /s/, then came /S/, /f/, /z/, /x/, /v/ > > and /Z/. /h/ in turn was used as a fricative consonant by 63% of > > languages. Then the nasals, at least one was found in 97% of the > > languages, being /n/, /m/, /ng/ and /ñ/ the most frequent in that > > order; but some as language of the Rotokas didn't include any. As > > for the liquids (/l/ and /r/), 96% of the languages used at least > > one, 72% used more. The approximants (semivowels) were found at > > the following rates: /j/ in 86% of languages and /w/ in 76%. > > > > And as a final and very revealing result, they also found that > > NONE of the sounds was found in every language. What this means is > > that ANY sound you choose to include in an IAL is likely to be > > found "difficult to pronounce" by the speakers of some or other > > language, because the sounds people find difficult to pronounce > > are not something that can be objectively be proven to be so, but > > simply and precisely those that are not already in use in their > > mother tongue and thus they're not used to pronounce. So, if in a > > certain language such as that of the Rotokas, there aren't any > > nasal consonants, they will find it "quite difficult" to pro- > > nounce /m/ or /n/, while the speakers of that other inmense amount > > of languages in which those sounds are present won't find anything > > particularly difficult in them at all; it is quite rare that a > > native speaker of a language finds a sound of his/her mother > > tongue difficult to pronounce (you'll have to think of, say, such > > rare cases as Czech "r^"), while it's very likely that he/she > > would see it as a difficulty having to pronounce sounds he/she is > > not used to pronounce because they are not already found in his/her > > native tongue. > > > > It's essential also that you become aware that the sound systems > > used by the thousands of different languages of the world display > > an incredibly astonishing degree of variety, and for that reason > > you can't base the choice of sounds for an IAL on local habits of > > pronounciation, but rather you'll have to look at those features > > most frequently encountered at a global level. > > > > And the merging of L/R into one single phoneme (usually a middle- > > sound between the lateral L and the rolled R, called a flap), is > > not the rule but the exception, because, as you have just seen, L > > and R are distinguished in aprox. 72% of the languages at a global > > level. Where you're most likely to encounter languages that merge > > L/R is around the Time Date Line, that is, in parts of East Asia > > and Oceania, and the speakers of languages from other areas ins- > > tantly identify the merging of L/R as a local habit of that geo- > > graphical region. Then, why should an IAL merge L/R? Some will > > say that to make its pronounciation easier for the speakers from > > that mentioned geographical area. But if you chose to do so, what > > you'd be doing in fact is to grant a privilege to the inhabitants > > of that region if you didn't include also the local pronounciation > > habits of the inhabitants of other areas. If you ignore the main > > trend of having at least two liquid sounds, L and R, clearly dis- > > tinguished, on the argument of helping the speakers of a certain > > group of languages in pronouncing the IAL, then the rest of the > > inhabitants of the world would have all the right to protest and > > ask for their own habits of pronounciation to be taken into ac- > > count, so that they too had the privilege of having the task of > > learning to pronounce the IAL equally simplified. But then, just > > think of what would happen: you would merge L/R, but then, you > > would find that in some languages there isn't any of them, so > > you'd have to take them away altogether; then, the speakers of > > Polynesian languages would require that you also abolished the > > distinction between T/K and the Rotokas would tell you to take > > away all the nasals too, while the speakers of those languages > > originated in the Iberian Peninsula (Spanish, Portuguese, Basque > > and Catalan) would urge you to merge the voiced fricatives with > > their oclusive counterparts, because that kind of lenition is a > > local feature of all the languages in that area (but again is > > very rarely found outside there); then, no voiced fricatives, > > but neither voiceless ones, because several languages lack them > > all, and neither glottals nor semivowels, that aren't used by > > several others, and then you should do the same with almost very > > vowel. The final result: the sound system of your IAL based on > > local habits of pronounciation would be this: /a/, /p/, /t/, and > > that given that you allow for an enormous degree of allophone > > variation, if not, the number of common remaining segments for > > that reason likely to find no kind of opposition would come to be > > reduced to just: 0.000000... > > > > Well, somebody has already proposed to create a language based > > on just one consonant and one vowel. Having two consonants (P, > > T) and a vowel (A) would greatly increase the possibilities, but > > just think of how any such language would look and sound: PA TA > > PA TAP PA TA TAT PAT TA PA TAT PA PA TA TA... Maybe you'd like > > that (mainly if you're a devotee of Morse code), but I'm sure > > that, quite on the contrary, most people around the world would > > consider the idea of a language with only 3 sounds to be the most > > laughable one they've ever heard. > > > > So, as you can see, when designing the sound system of an IAL it > > is not possible that you take into account such local habits of > > pronounciation as the merging of L/R, of B/V or T/K in order to > > make its pronounciation supposedly easier (it would be easier, > > of course, but just for the speakers of that regional area in > > which that local habit of pronounciation is found, not for the > > rest of the world). > > > > Well, maybe somebody is thinking: Why not choosing for the IAL a > > very simple sound system --as, say, those of Japanese or Samoan-- > > so that it will be very easy to pronounce for most people? > > > > --- > > Those languages I've just cited have very poor sound systems: > > > > * JAPANESE (quite poor): 11 consonants, 5 vowels and 4 diphthongs > > (with long and short varieties), vocalic nasal and glottal stop. > > Syllable structure (C)V('), being C={h/f-p, b; t/ts/ch, d/j; k, > > g; s/sh, z/j; m, n; r}, V={i,e,a,o,u,ya,yo,yu,wa;î,ê,â,ô,û,yâ, > > yô,yû,wâ;n}, ' glottal stop (spelled in transliteration by > > doubling the following consonant) > > > > * SAMOAN (even poorer): 10 consonants, and 5 vowels (10 counting > > long and short). Syllable structure (C)V, being C={p,t,'; f,s,v; > > m,n,g; l} and V={i,e,a,o,u; î,ê,â,ô,û} > > --- > > > > Mmm... it seems like Japanese and Samoan must be VERY EASY LANGUAGES > > TO PRONOUNCE!!, most desirable models to be imitated by the IAL's > > sound system!!, right? ...Then I'm sure you've never tried to > > pronounce such memorable everyday sentences as: > > > > * JAPANESE (poor sound system = of course, VERY EASY to pronounce): > > > > -Anata ga kono otoko no ko to ikitakunakatta ne. > > (You didn't want to go with this child, right?) > > > > ...my tongue is starting to get dizzy!! > > > > > > * SAMOAN (perfect example of extremely poor sound system = of course, > > this one must certainly be DEAD EASY to pronounce): > > > > -O fea e fa'atau ai se fuâlâ'au? (Where can I buy a fruit?) > > -'Ou te lê mana'o 'i le mea lena. (I don't want that) > > -E fia le tau aofa'i? (How much is all of this?) > > -E mafai ona 'e fa'epa'û la'itiiti i lalo? > > (Can I have it at a cheaper price?) > > > > ...MY OUTRAGED ACHING TONGUE IS CLAIMING FOR REVENGE!!! > > > > As you see, having a poor sound system doesn't turn a language into > > an easy one to pronounce, but quite on the contrary, because having > > so little to choose from, the same sounds and syllable structures > > have to be used really frequently thus turning simple sentences into > > annoying nearly-unpronounceable tongue-twisters. That's why most > > languages choose not to use so extremely poor sound systems, but > > prefer medium-sized sets, of an average around 25-35 phonemes. > > > > The sound system I propose has 26 phonemes (thus an average-low > > number), is perfectly suited to be written in that script everybody > > has easy access to for word-processing, printing and databases and > > that has the largest and most varied amount of available fonts, and, > > as you will see, has a high degree of internal logic. > >To be continued...
_________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com