On 18 sep, 05:31, "Logan Kearsley" <chrono.sur...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> I've started out by eliminating any consonant distinctions based on
voici=
ng
> 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
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).
> n- nasal
Why did you leave out "m"?
> 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)
[=2E..]
> Would it be a really good idea to make 'r' firmly
> consonantal, or is it OK to let it be syllabic?
Make the phoneme /l/ rather than /r/, because laterals are
less marked than rhotics. OTOH, syllabic consonants are
relatively uncommon, and thus they are likely to cause
trouble; so avoid them.
> 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.
[=2E..]
> How does that look so far? Anything that I should take
> away or add?
>
> Coming soon, vowels and syllable structure....
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:
* Obstruents
Plosives:
- labial: /p/
- dentoalveolar: /t/
- guttural: /k/
(voiced, aspirated, et al. would be allophonic variants)
Fricatives:
- alveolar: /s/ (sounds like "sh" /S/ and "z" /z/ would be allophonic)
* Sonorants
Nasal:
- labial: /m/
- alveolar: /n/ (sounds like "ng" /N/ would be allophonic)
Liquid:
- lateral: /l/ (with no phonemic distinction between laterals
and rhotics, as in several Oriental languages)
* Vowels
Open:
- Mid: /a/ (allophones ranging from "=E8" [E] and "=E4" [a]
to "=E5" [A] and "=F2" [O])
Close:
- Front: /i/ (allophones ranging from "y" [j] to "=E9" [e])
- Back: /u/ (allophones ranging from "w" [w] to "=F3" [o])
(this is basically the vowel system of languages
such as Arabic, Quechua and Inuit)
* Phonotactics:
- Syllable structure: [C]V
- Adjacent vowels must be different
- No more than two vowels in a row
- No more than four syllables per word
Thus, there would be two dozen allowed syllables:
pa, pi, pu, ta, ti, tu, ka, ki, ku, sa, si, su
ma, mi, mu, na, ni, nu, la, li, lu, a, i, u
which would combine into words as:
- 24 possible monosyllables
- 552 possible bisyllables
- 12,600 possible trisyllables
- 287,784 possible tetrasyllabes
for a total of 300,960 possible words (if I reckoned correctly)
in this hypothetical language.
Consider that throughout their entire life a college-educated
English speaker will have ever actively used around 50,000
lexical items and learned to understand passively up to
about 100,000 items in all, Shakespeare's works contain
a grand total of less than 30,000 distinct word forms, the
average English speaker manages through life with a lexicon
of about 10,000 to 20,000 words, and about 5,000 are enough
for basic communication needs. So even though at first glance
the phonology here proposed seems like a very restricted one
that would only generate some kind of Tarzan-style "primitive"
language, a full-fledged rich and expressive language would
in fact be perfectly possible with it.
Sample words:
papa, tiku, makuli, nitukima, su, pikasani, luli, nukatu, kau,
uali, pimatini, atikasu, mulina, taka, pusa, kilasi, tiaku, pipu,
imalini, akupai, iuta, kunali, sala, pi, kipau, satuki, lasua, kuku
Sample sentences:
Ka lina usikai tuni sakala pu tia kusu li mapa.
Nuli musana tu nilimau ki kanuli sisa pai kalumi.
Minui makana la sitaku pa nila nuki tua pasai.
Less restrictive alternative phonologies might include fortis/lenis
pairs of plosives (p/b, t/d, k/g), three or four fricatives (adding
f, sh, h) and maybe a pair of affricates too (the fortis/lenis pair ch/
j),
two other nasals (palatal ny and guttural ng), rhotics distinguished
from laterals, five vowels (i, e, a, o, u), and less constrained
phonotactics such as allowing coda -n (or maybe coda sonorants
more generally) and possibly syllable-initial consonant clusters
of the plosive+liquid kind (such as kl- and pr-).
|
