Re: Click consonants

> "Mistake" is a matter of opinion when it comes to conlangs. A "mistake"
> might be designing a human language with a velar click (which is impossible
> to pronounce), but if a conlang has something odd like a labiodental click,
> that's probably a design feature.
True. If it's not a human language, then I don't really have a problem with it.

> Not necessarily. You can't generalize from the few human languages with
> clicks, especially if the speakers are non-human. Qiira Triicha has two
> distinct alveolar clicks (a "tick" and a "tock", differing in pitch).
> Dental clicks would be impossible for rodents with a gap in their teeth.
I think the phonologies of Nama, !Xóõ, Xhosa, Ju|'hõasi, |Xam, Zulu, !Ora,
Ku|khaasi, and at least a dozen more. The fact that Xhosa and Zulu have click
inventories similar to the Khoisan languages(the others listed in that list)
despite getting them through borrowing from them.

> Besides, don't Zulu and Xhosa have alveolar (not palatal) clicks?
You could be right, though I'm pretty sure they are palatal. I have a recording
of Xhosa and they definantly sound palatal.

> But if there isn't any phonemic distinction in the click accompaniments,
> there's no need to mention them explicitly (since all clicks have them by
> definition).
They must be mentioned explicitly. The difference between k! and g!, for example,
is phonemic. To not mention the accompaniments would be like not mentioning the
different the other consonants other than points of articulation and airstream
mechanism, which is all you'll get if you leave out the accompaniment.

Reply