Re: David qua David

In a message dated 4/19/01 10:44:53 PM, fortytwo@GDN.NET writes:

<<
> Vowels: [u], [u:], [ae], [ae:], [i], [i:], [y], [y:], [I], [I:], [E], [E:],
> [R], [R:] (this last one is that err vowel in "bird", "herd", "curd", et
> cetera)
So, only 2 back vowels and 12 front vowels?>>

    Oh, yeah!  Don't like those back vowels!

> [q'] (uvular ejective, used only in some verb conjugations--remnant
> of an olders system).
Generally, if a language has only one ejective, it will be [k'].  Also,
ejectives are generally either used only in lexical items, or in both
lexical items and grammatical morpheme.
 >>

    Funny.  The only ejective I've encountered in a natural language in my
life is that [q'], and it was Arabic.  Of course, for those of you who know
Arabic, you'll know there is no uvular ejective, which explains why I had so
much trouble pronouncing words with initial [q]'s in them.  All I could do
was a uvular ejective, for some reason, and so I'm rather fond of it.  I've
been meaning to include it in a language, and now I have.

<<Interesting, but it seems rather artificial.>>

    As to artificiality, I never intend to make a language that looks like a
real one.  Though now with that data I posted the other day about the
prepositions in that one language with [m], [a], [y], [?], [u], [h], [n], and
[l], I'm beginning to doubt that artificiality in language can exist...

<<So, suppose you had, [zE:Gi:B] and [zi:Gi:B], then those two would be
identical in the dative?>>

    You bet!  I love it! ~:D

> [r]+[j]>[H]
This one doesn't make much sense.>>

    Yeah, I couldn't think of anything better...  I thought of how back in
the throat that [r] sound of English is, and how back in the throat the [H]
is...  Would it make more sense with a voiced pharyngeal fricative?  I'm open
to any suggestions.

-David

Reply