Re: Gzarondan vowels
|From:||Adrian Morgan <morg0072@...>|
|Date:||Friday, June 28, 2002, 3:36|
JS Bangs wrote, quoting myself:
> > * Vowels marked with a star can be followed by [l] within the
> > vowel space of the conlang's syllable structure.
> I don't understand this comment. Are you saying that a sequence like
> [6l] would all be considered a syllabic nucleus? What ramifications
> does this have?
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. For all practical purposes, [6l] and
so on are diphthongs in the phonology. I'm not sure what you mean by
'ramifications', but for a detailed description, the info is on the
relevant web pages:
Gzarondan spelling/pronunciation page:
Gzarondan phonetic constraints page:
> > [e_y:]
> Do you mean for this last part to be rounded? Or did you mean [e_j]?
You're right, it was a typo.
> Frightful, really. I think the SAMPA makes it look worse than it is, but
> it's still an odd collection of phones. No [u]?
It does have [U] and historically had [}:] but then [}:] merged with
[@}] and became [o_w]. This is not exactly official as I don't
include lang history on the website, but it is suggested by the
Gzarondan spelling conventions, in which [o_w] is spelt as though it
were a diphthong.
The vowel set for Gzarondan emerged by accident rather than by design,
but I've always assumed this is no bad thing as phonemes for natlangs
evolve by accident too.
>  [6:]
> [e] [e_j:]
> [O] [o_w:]
> [U] [8:]
> [I] [i:]
But how do you feel about:
Diphthongs, as before, are
Group 1: [e8] [i8]
Group 2: [6I] [}u] -- note: [}u] could become [6u] I suppose
Group 3: [6l] [el] [Ol] [8l] [Il]