"Padraic Brown" <elemtilas@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:0nv2f3999hujvo11ad92e9ngo6fmd1p7id@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
Hm. I'll put that up for consideration, then. We've conveniently got the
letter 'l' left over to cover vocalic forms if we do want to distinguish
them.
>>>>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?
That's exactly correct.
>>> 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.
Learned natively, I'm sure they're no harder than any other sound. That's
not of much help when trying to design an auxlang not intended to be
anyone's native tongue that's universally easy to pronounce, though.
>>>>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!
I'm leaning the same way. Allowing two-consonant internal clusters
shouldn't
be a problem, since you can just insert a syllable break in between to
de-clusterize them (which would be the official phonological description
anyway), but that don't work for initials. If nobody gives strong sup****t
for putting in initial clusters, I'll probably just forget about it.
>>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?
Because it feels right. I tried to stuff everything that an English
speaker
would be likely to turn into a schwa into the E category. (Perhaps that's
being overly anglocentric, but AFAICT, it shouldn't cause problems for
speakers of other native languages; am I wrong about that?)
>>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
Yup. Except for I and O; they seem a bit lonely. Not entirely sure what I
could/should add or move around.
> 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?
Because I'm not terribly familiar with vowel+A diphthongs; It's possible
that I'm just being stupid about it (which is why I'm posting here, for
other people to examine), but I couldn't think of any examples in
languages
I know / know about when making the list.
Basically, I just started with a list of all of the diphthongs I could
think
of that I can pronounce easily without a clear separation between the
component vowels, and then dropped out all of the ones that I couldn't
think
of examples for in at least two languages. Not terribly scientific, I
know.
Perhaps [ou] would make a good allophone for [o]....
-l.
------------------------------------
My inbox is a sacred shrine, none shall enter that are not worthy.
|
