Re: The Romanized Orthography of My Conlang

Hi Austin,

I read your mail with interest.
----------
> Van: Austin Taylor <aemilius7@...>
> Aan: Multiple recipients of list CONLANG <CONLANG@...>
> Onderwerp: Re: The Romanized Orthography of My Conlang
> Datum: zondag 10 oktober 1999 22:46
>
> Tom Wier-
>
> The consonants I listed were those whose pronunciation
> differs from, or is excluded from the Katabala consonants.
> I mentioned that all letters, unless otherwise specified,
> are pronounced as in English.  This sentence is there;
> sorry if you didn't catch it, Tom.
I am confused now, is there a /p/ or not?

> > More importantly, why is there no /p/, but there *is* an /f/?
> > Austin, right now, your consonant inventory looks like this:
> >                 lab den alv pal    vel
> > vcl stops               t              k
> > vcd stops                            g
> > vcl fric        f   th    s             x
> > vcd fric                     zh
> > vcl aff                       ch
> > vcd aff                      j
> >
> > There are a few problems with this, if you're attempting to
> > achieve a naturalistic effect in a language (of course, if you're
> > not, you can just ignore the rest of this).
> >
> > 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/.

I can imagine something like this happened: p->f, t->s, k->x. d->th, g ->
remains g (this would not be logic, it should merge with /k/ to /x/, since
a velar slit fricative is impossible). b could be lacking. See e.g. Dutch:
it has /b/, and /d/ but no /g/. So Austin's language is like Tillamook,
Iroquoian, Aleut in lacking a bilabial stop and Dutch in respect of lacking
them in the voiced range.

I'm intruiged by langs that 'miss' something: Hawai'ian: has p, k , ?. It
lacks t!
Other examples: Sentani:
p       t       k
        d                       (no b or g)

Rotokas:
p       t       k
                g               (no b or d)

Chuave:
        t       k               (no p)
b       d                       (no g)

Only /zh/, /ch/, /j/ I cannot explain. I think I don't want to, I like it
the way it is.

> >
> > The same general principle applies to the voiced consonants you
> > have (<g>, <zh>, and <j>).  In each case, you have a single consonant
> > in a category, which is statistically unlikely as natural language
> > change goes.
> >
What is the name of your language?
Do you have a grammar?