On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:02:17 -0600, "Logan Kearsley"
<chrono.surfer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>"Padraic Brown" <elemtilas@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:kr86f3hgevsncokmve6p54nhn6foq6phli@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 00:55:38 -0600, "Logan Kearsley"
>> <chrono.surfer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>>>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.
>>
>> My point is simply that "universally easy" is all a matter of personal
>> opinion.
>
>"Easy" is a matter of personal opinion. "Easy for a particular group",
much
>less so. I'm just choosing the "particular group" to be "the largest one
you
>can assemble".
I wonder how large said group would actually be. In practice. In
theory, I guess it could include everyone capable of speech. In
practice, I suspect the group would be much smaller.
>>>(which would be the official phonological description
>>>anyway), but that don't work for initials. If nobody gives strong
support
>>>for putting in initial clusters, I'll probably just forget about it.
>>
>> You can introduce a weak vowel (a schwa) in support of the word intial
>> cluster. Kind of like how Spanish has estado where English has state.
>
>That would require allowing initial vowels (in fact, it would be implied
by
>allowing initial vowels).
Not if it doesn't count as a vowel. A contrary example: English has no
words that begin with vowels. Really. All our words start with
consonants. It's just that words that begin with the letters A, E, I,
O and U really begin life with glottal stops -- we just don't think of
that sound as _distinct_ from the vowel. Likewise, speakers of your
hypothetical language could do the same, only the other way around. A
barely audible vocalic fragment could allow them initial consonant
clusters that could even fall under your separation rule. If you had a
word SKARO, it would be something like @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
all divided out. Just a
thought.
>I don't really have a problem with that, though,
>so I might just go ahead and do it.
>
>> Will your language have word final clusters at all?
>
>Almost definitely not.
On second thought, that makes sense. In order to make the cluster
divisible, you'd either have to add an epenthetic vowel (this breaking
the cluster) or adding a vowel on the end, in which case you have a
word ending in a vowel!
>>>I tried to stuff everything that an English speaker
>>>would be likely to turn into a schwa into the E category.
>>
>> That's just about everything!
>
>Touché.
>
>>>(Perhaps that's
>>>being overly anglocentric, but AFAICT, it shouldn't cause problems for
>>>speakers of other native languages; am I wrong about that?)
>>
>> What, schwaifying everything? This language seems to be all about
>> allophones, so why not?
>>
>>>>>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.
>>
>> It's a matter of spelling, but words like "was" and "wasp" could
>> arguably be considered UA diphthongs: uasp, etc.
>
>Hm. I suppose you could spell it that way. I percieve a definite
distinction
>between how I pronounce [ua] vs. [wa], but since we're all about
allophones
>here, might not be a problem. I'll see what the group thinks about adding
>them.
It's all going to end up an allophone of schwa anyway, so what's the
worry!? ;)))))
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
|
