Re: Sounds in Conlangs

bob thornton wrote:

>This is a question.
>
>How many of your conlangs have any of the "Other
>Symbols" in the IPA? It seems to me that they are both
>rare in natlang and conlang, exepting the [w] [W]
>pair.
>
>Suchlike I have never seen a conlang with an [x\],
>much less with anything epiglottal.
>
>Why is this? Are these sounds considered aesthetically unpleasant?
>
>
These are either co-articulations (i.e. sounds that have more than one
articulator, so they're the intersection of one row and _two_ columns)
or ones that don't warrant a row or column of their own, cases where
only one or a few boxes would be filled if they were included in the
table up top. For instance, [w] is an approximant produced
simultaneously labially and velarly, hence a labio-velar approximant. I
don't _really_ know why the epiglottal sounds don't live in the table up
top, though.

As far as I know, linguists (as a species, not as individuals) don't
make aesthetic judgements in this day and age. As for me, I think [X] is
a pretty unpleasant sound, and think it should be stricken from the
table and relegated to a subordinate position as a footnote to the chart.

--
Tristan.

Replies