Re: Gzarondan vowels

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:
   <http://www.netyp.com/member/dragon/create_gz-sp.htm>
Gzarondan phonetic constraints page:
   <http://www.netyp.com/member/dragon/create_gz-ph.htm>

> > [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.

You suggest:

> [6] [6:]
> [e] [e_j:]
> [@]
> [O] [o_w:]
> [U] [8:]
> [I] [i:]
> [l=:]
But how do you feel about:

[6] [6:]
[e] [e_j:]
[@] [8:]
[O] [O:]
[U] [o_w:]
[I] [i:]
[l=:]

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]

Adrian.