On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:00:23 -0600, "Logan Kearsley"
<chrono.surfer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>"Padraic Brown" <elemtilas@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:gdt0f3pc0qonc3l29vihbdmif8op0vb9l6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:31:52 -0600, "Logan Kearsley"
>> <chrono.surfer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't typically go in for auxlangs, but I've started helping out with
a
>>>small group project, and I'm trying to design a phonological system
that's
>>>as close to universally pronounceable as possible.
>>>
>>>I've started out by eliminating any consonant distinctions based on
>>>voicing
>>>or aspiration, and putting together a lot of allophones. After taking
out
>>>some other possible noises that are missing from any of the various
>>>languages I have appropriate knowledge of, I've got a list of 7 1/2
>>>consonants:
>>>b- labial plosive
>>>d- alveolarplosive
>>>g- glottal plosive
>>> j- postalveolar fricative
>>>v- labiodental fricative
>>>z- alveolar fricative
>>>n- nasal
>>>r- any of r, r\, r`, r\`, l, l`, or l\ (counted half at the moment
because
>>>r's and l's can be syllabic)
>>>
>>>How does that look so far? Would it be a really good idea to make 'r'
>>>firmly
>>>consonantal, or is it OK to let it be syllabic?
>>
>> It's syllabic/vocalic in English as is -- it's just a coloured [@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> I'd count it as a vowel, if I were devising such a scheme.
>
>It is in *English*, but I don't know about other languages. I can list
lots
>of syllabic r's in English (and syllabic l's, too), but I can't think of
any
>in, say, Russian (doesn't mean they don't exist, but I can't recall any
>examples).
>My group has for the moment voted to class it as a consonant, but perhaps
>they could be persuaded to change their minds. How common is syllabic
[r\]
>(or [r], or [r`], etc.) in other languages?
I've seen references to it in Czech, Serbian, German (dialectal),
Sanskrit, Mandarin, some Bantu languages. Probably others as well. I'm
not arguing one way or the other, just noting that R has more in
common with vowels than with consonants. The traditional understanding
of "consonant" is a sound that obstructs the airflow to such an extent
that air really can't flow, and therefore it can not be sounded on its
own. It must be "sounded with" -- con-sonans -- a vowel. An R clearly
can be sounded on its own.
Of course, there are also other syllabics such as V, Z, N, M, NG in
addition to L & R. You might want to distinguish vocalic R from
consonantal R in your language.
>>>Anything that I should take
>>>away or add?
>>
>> I would add the fricative analogue to [g] (sorry I don't recall the
>> IPA off hand). Might also add the stop analogue to your "j" -- I guess
>> that would be [?], glottal stop, or else voiced [q]. Why no [m]?
>
>There is an [m]- it's a nasal, so that sound would go with the symbol
'n'.
>We made them all allophonic.
I see -- in other words, you don't really have an M or an N, but a
nasal phoneme that may indisciminately be realised as [m] or [n]
without prejudice. Like aspirated and nonaspirated plosives in
English: we hear Pick and oPen as having the "same sound" or
allophone. Or am I missing something?
>> You may not be interested in such "exotica", but surely there are some
>> clicks that are universally pronounceable, if not universally used in
>> languages!
>
>I can pronounce a lot of clicks in isolation, but integrating them into
>words is... non-trivial.
I rather doubt people whose languages involve clicks find them
"non-trivial" at all! It's just a matter of perspective. They might
even find a clickless language as extremely odd.
>>>Coming soon, vowels and syllable structure....
>>
>> Yay!
>
>Alright, I went and proposed a syllable structure of CV(C), just as a
>starting example, and my group sort of jumped on it. So, I guess that's
what
>we're going with, with slight modifications for terminals and initials.
So,
>every word starts with a single consonant (it is currently under
>consideration whether to allow initial consonant clusters- thoughts?),
If clicks and vocalic Rs are considered too far from "universal",
clusters can hardly suffer a different fate!
>and
>ends with anything at all. We're probably going to disallow most terminal
>consonants in deference to languages like Japanese- better to leave in
some
>(like 'n'), or just say "all words will end with vowels"?
>
>The vowel list current stands as:
>a - [a], [A], [O]
>e - [e], [E], [I], [@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>i - [i]
Why is [I] part of E and not I?
>o - [o]
>u - [u], [y], [U]
>And diphthongs:
>ai - [ai], [Ai]
>ei - [ei], [Ei]
>oi - [oi]
>ao - [ao], [au], [Ao], [Au]
>
>Lots of allophones. And we currently have more vowel sounds than
consonants;
>that bothers me a bit, though I'm not sure why.
As far as I can see, you really only have five vowel categories, each
having several allophones. I think it's arguable whether diphthongs
are individual vowels or are composed of two discreet vowels. Since
this is an auxlang and not a naturalistic conlang with a history
behind it, I don't think this is such a problem.
>I suppose it's OK. 'ao'
>seems sort of like the odd-diphthong-out. Anything that should be
>rearranged/added/excluded?
Why only one vowel+O diphthong? What about EO / EU; OU or UO. Why no
vowel+A diphthongs at all?
Padraic
>
>-l.
>------------------------------------
>My inbox is a sacred shrine, none shall enter that are not worthy.
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
