On Sat, 22 Jul 2000 11:44:38 -0700, Danny Wier <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>--- Vasiliy Chernov <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> No, I wasn't satisfied with Miituu. Danny was right saying that
>> 'true'
>> geminates could be counted as phonemes. And the other complications
>> with syllabication can be suggestive of something like deep-level
>> glottal stop.
>
>Your task is daunting.  I couldn't come up with anything that detailed.

Yep, the system has become overloaded with details for me, too.
To avoid unnatural gaps on the surface, I have to assume e. g. the
following distinctions in the underlying system:

e.ke.e /ikja/
ek.e.e /iija/
ek_ke.e /ikkja/ ('true geminate')
ek.ke.e /iikja/

> Maybe it's because I've studied Farsi and a little Arabic, but I see
>syllables as being C, CV or CVC -- V and VC just begin with a "null
>consonant", which could be the glottal stop (lenited to a mere hiatus),
>or a voiced or voiceless [h].

I think it depends on the specific system. I don't think introducing
a 'zero consonant' will help much in describing systems like Russian
or Spanish. Alternatively one could introduce zero vowels, or some
'syllabicity' as a segmental entity. For most systems this would
be very anti-intuitive, IMO (while very witty with a few others).

>All utterances must have a beginning and
>an end.

But there are too many entities having a beginning and an end. Besides
syllables, there are phonetic words, and sometimes one needs some
additional intermediary level (e. g. to describe consonant devoicing
in German). Include all of them in the phonemic inventories? Or just
name a cat 'a cat' - that is, let them remain simply 'syllable
boundaries', etc.?

>And syllabries do have V and/or VC representations.  Just add one to
>the number of consonants.
>
>Gemination need not double the number of consonants, if you treat a
>geminate CC as being XC, where X is a "dummy consonant" that
>assimilates to the following consonant.

Then I'll get more than 5 phonemes :(

I think I've already solved this problem in the sister system, `Akupa.
I do believe that `Akupa represents a system operating only five
segmental elements, on the 'deep' level.

<long snip>

>> Is it flawless this time?
>
>This is conlang; there are no "flaws" ;)

Yes, of course... And yet I like my conlangs (and their descriptions) to
be free of such inconsistencies :)

Life is too short to finish any of them. So what I think *is* finished
in them must look sound.

>
>DaW.


Basilius