Re: Unilang: the Phonology
| From: | Tommie L Powell <tommiepowell@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Thursday, April 19, 2001, 0:06 |
|---|
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 jesse stephen bangs wrote:
>
> I agree with Nik here. Having no liquids would destroy the
> renderability for the 96% just to keep the pronounceability for
> the remaining 4%, which is very contrary to Oskar's goals.
>
> Somebody else mentioned the instability of such sounds, but
> I don't see why this is relevant. [SNIP]
I'm the "somebody else" and here's why the instability of such
sounds (l, r, f) is relevant:
Oskar's approach (with its focus on "ease" and "renderability")
works fine for the SPEAKER, but not for the LISTENER.
If saying an L one way makes it sound like an N to one listener
and saying it another way makes it sound like a D to another,
communication fails horribly. -- Tommie
Reply