----------
> Van: Thomas R. Wier <artabanos@...>
> Aan: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG <CONLANG@...>
> Onderwerp: Re: The Romanized Orthography of My Conlang
> Datum: maandag 11 oktober 1999 13:12
>
> "R. Nierse" wrote:
>
> > Hi Austin,
> >
> > I read your mail with interest.
>
> As did I. :)
>
> > > > First, language sounds tend to be organized in groups. That is,
> > > > when a language has one sound in one type of category (say,
> > > > voiceless stops, consonants that completely stop the airflow and
> > > > where the vocal chords aren't vibrating at the same time), it will
> > > > tend to have all or most of the other sounds in that category. So,
> > > > if your language has /t/ and /k/, it's more likely to have a /p/
too.
> > > > But that in itself is not the clincher: you could just say that
your
> > > > language doesn't have labial sounds (like /p/); though rare, two
> > > > languages I'm studying in class now, Atkan Aleut and Onandaga,
> > > > both lack labial consonants (more or less). The thing is, though,
> > > > your phonology here also has an /f/, a labial fricative (a sound
which
> > > > allows "frication" or rustling of the air), and so if you're going
to
> > > > say your language lacks labial consonants, you'll need to be
> > > > consistent about it.
> >
> > I don't agree. As you stated, there are languages that lack bilabial
> > consonants *and* are inconsistent. Take Cherokee. No /p/ or /b/, but
there
> > is /m/.
>
> Right. And Aleut has an /m/, too, but no /p/ and /b/. What I meant
> to say was that these are just tendencies; of course individual
languages
> may have incompletely filled categories. But note that I did say
"...when
> a language has one sound in one type of category... it will tend to have
> all or most of the other sounds in that category."
That's true
> If it was not clear that
> I intended that tone for the entirety of the critique, I apologize.
>
> Also, in case it wasn't clear, I didn't mean any personal criticism of
> Austin's conlang -- I was just approaching it from a more holistic
> linguistic perspective, speaking of how languages work in general.
> Sorry if I caused any offense.
>
Did I souns so harsh? Apologies on my side then.