Re: Futurese

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