On 22 sep, 00:55, "Logan Kearsley" <chrono.sur...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> <uaxuc...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > I find it very odd that you chose to represent these consonants
> > using letters that are primarily associated with voiced sounds.
> > Obstruent consonants are typically voiceless (whereas sonorant
> > consonants and vowels are typically voiced).
>
> Change the symbol list to p, t, k, c/x, f, & s, then. Which set of
symbols
> you write it with isn't as im****tant as what the sounds are.
> Note, I intentionally left out distinctions based on voicing- unvoiced
and
> voiced forms of each are considered allophones of a single phoneme.
Yes, but using <d>, <z>, etc. seems to imply that [d], [z], etc.
would be the primary allophones of those phonemes (the ones
representing their "ideal" sounds out of context) while [t], [s], etc.
would seem to be relegated to secondary allophones; when it
should be the other way round, because the unmarked, "basic"
phones in the obstruent category are the voiceless ones.
> > > n- nasal
>
> > Why did you leave out "m"?
>
> I didn't. [m] is a nasal.
Do you mean you would conflate [n] and [m] into a single
phoneme /n/? Now _that_ would be extremely odd. Nasals
are frequently conflated into an |N| archiphoneme (phonetically
realized as a homorganic nasal according to the following
sound), but *only* in coda position (i.e., frequently a language
has the syllable-initial phonemes /m/ and /n/ and the coda nasal
archiphoneme |N|; but not a single /n/ phoneme everywhere
that might be realized as [m] syllable initially so that [mama]
and [nana] would be allophones). The distinction /m/ vs. /n/
syllable-initially is about as basic as the /p/ vs. /t/ distinction.
Only a very few oddball languages lack /m/ (I can only think
of reconstructed ancient Basque, and a few Native American
languages that seem to lack labial consonants altogether;
but these are the exceptions, not the rule, and in them the
sound [m] either does not occur at all or occurs as allophone
not of /n/ but of /w/, /b/ or /nb/).
> > I'm afraid I think it currently doesn't look very optimal as
> > a "universally pronounceable" phonology. But here you are
> > an idea for a quite minimal phonology (ten phonemes in all)
> > that is not likely to cause much trouble:
>
> Can you say what in particular is wrong with it? What and for whom would
be
> difficult to pronounce?
If you are trying to be "universally pronounceable", look only
for the most essential kinds of articulations and distinctions.
Get rid of labiodentals altogether (historically they have been
repeatedly troublesome for speakers of several languages,
leading to the frequent evolution [f] > [h] > zero), and get
rid of the "s" vs. "sh" distinction (troublesome for Spanish,
Indonesian and Tagalog speakers, for example, and it didn't
exist in Latin or Greek either; one sibilant is enough for
a basic phonemic repertoire), and make it clear that the
voiceless allophones would be the primary allophones of
the obstruents.
|
