Re: backwards conlanging

On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, daniel andreasson wrote:

> Yoon Ha wrote:
>
> > I have a stupid boring /i/ /e/ /a/ /o/ /u/ vowel system,
> > with two diphthongs.  I guess I'll have to figure out
> > something more complicated that could've simplified down
> > to the 5-vowel system.
>
> Or why not the other way around? The protolang might have
> had only /a/ /u/ /i/, and then /u/ and /i/ became [o] and
> [e] in some contexts. Then, in the future, Chevraqis (or some
> dialect) could develop front rounded vowels, or length
> distinctions, or nasality, or... well you get the point.
<wry g>  I see the point, though I prefer to go from more vowels to less,
simply because otherwise I end up doing permutations of just three vowels
for infixes (e.g. CaCiCu) with triconsonantal morphology, and the
permutations are a) monotonous (or more monotonous, anyway) to my ear and
b) harder to remember.

That's what I love about artlanging--if it suits you and makes any sort
of internal sense, why not?  :-)

If I can ever get the stupid protolang figured out (I may end up waiting
till I take intro to phonology/phonetics next semester, which ought to be
fun), I do want to evolve a descendant of Chevraqis that's gone
analytical (Chevraqis is inflectional--and yes, I'm probably messing up
the terminology here) and has less vowels, or different vowels.  All in
good time....

YHL