Re: Listening to Conlangs

Tom Wier wrote:

> This is a neat language; I enjoyed your description of it, though
> I wish there were more of it.
Thanks. As with the other languages on my site: I don't think
I'll work much more on them. However, my new conlang will be
similar phonologically, though not at all as polysynthetic as
Pimak. I like that kind of minimalism without any voiced
obstruents.

> Just one nitpick:  when you say the
> phonotactics are "CVC", I assume you mean that the language allows
> CV and CVC syllables along with, apparently, V as well.
> What about VC syllables?
Yes. Apparently the phonotax isn't something I've put much
effort into. At least not when it comes to describing it. I
just go by my general feeling.

Basically I wanted to have only closed syllables. Well, my
original plan was to have only CVCVC words. That didn't work
obviously. (And the first syllable isn't closed.) So I allowed
CVC affixes (and some words) as well. Then I created some CV
syllables as well. So yes, there are CVC and CV syllables. And
V actually for some reason. Haven't thought of that. I might
remove those. If I decide to allow V syllables, then VC syllables
should be alright as well.

> I scanned through your examples and didn't see any
> of those at first glance, which suggests your system is asymmetric:
> codas are allowed, except when there is also no onset.
Yes, I see the problem. VC syllables should exist. ::searhes::
There are VC syllables actually! The 3PL affix |uk-|:

pilik-kas-0    uk -mis-kulan-0   -xut
boy  -PL -ABS  3PL-1SG-cut  -PAST-PERF
'The boys cut me.'

|Ukmiskulanxut| includes a nice example of a VC syllable.
Phew! Wouldn't wanna break the Optimality Theory. ;)

Daniel Andreasson

------------------------------------------------------------
"You can't post that on the Internet, you don't even know if
it's true!" - Lisa Simpson to Homer.
------------------------------------------------------------