On 12/10/2011 23:33, neo gu wrote:
[snip]
>
> Thanks, at least I know that (1) my post didn't just
> disappear and (2) it wasn't clear
>
> The basic problem is that I can't decide on what subsets
> of 2-syllable sequences (or single syllables for that
> matter) should be allowed in roots. For example, should
> roots be limited to (C)VCVC?
>
> Does that help?

Yes, it does.

Personally I don't see what single syllables aren't enough -
but I would not restrict (C)V(C) to C being a single
consonant.  I would allow consonant clusters; but the
clusters one might have as onset will not be the same as
those allowed as codas.

More details will depend on the structure of your
protolanguage; if, e.g. the language is has fusional
inflexions (like PIE) or an agglutinative structure, roots
will appear with endings, so roots might have the structure
(C)VCC- where the second C is the onset of another syllable
which forms an ending/suffix.

[snip]
>>
>> In your reply on the 9th you wrote:
>>"original vowels: i u  @  a
 >> original consonants: p  t  k  b  d  g  f  s
>> m n  l  R (both onset and coda)"

As onsets I would certainly suggest /p k b g f/ + /l R/ -
whether you restricted /t d/ to just combos with following
/R/ or whether you allow /tl/ and /dl/ is up to you.

Then there are all the possibilities with /s/ + C.

Altho some languages allow prenasalized plosives as syllabic
onsets, e.g. /ntu/, they are far more common as codas. Also
/l/ or /R/ followed by another consonant are common codas.

But really, in the end, the choice is yours.
==========================================================

On 12/10/2011 23:54, neo gu wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:04:37 -0400, Anthony Miles wrote:
[snip]

>> 4. I find it hard to believe that R (by which I assume
>>  you mean the uvular "French r") has no effect on
>> surrounding phonemes.
>
> It probably does, but I haven't decided how much is just
> phonetic.

If you haven't decided, it would surely be better just to
write /r/. Using /R/ definitely conveys the impression that
you mean a uvular sound here, either a trill or the Parisian
uvular approximant.

Rhotic sounds, however, of whatever kind are notorious at
affecting surrounding phonemes.
===========================================================

On 13/10/2011 01:29, Roger Mills wrote:
[snip]
>
> Seems to me that possible syllable structure is entirely
> up to you; make it as free or restricted as you like.

Exactly!

[snip]
>
> Sound changes of course wrought havoc on that system;
> you may have read the final result on my website.

   :)

That's what happens in natlangs as well.

IMO neo gu should concentrate first on the protolanguage and
not worry about subsequent sound changes.  That's what
happens in the 'real world'.  After all, our PIE-speaking
ancestors did not say to themselves "What sound changes will
our descendants make? We'd better pick phonemes accordingly"

I know PIE has been *reconstructed* by working back though
sound changes; but that's because no one wrote down PIE at
the time.  Also, the reconstruction of PIE is possible *only
because there are several quite different daughter
languages.*  PIE is a reconstruction of something that can
reasonably explain the relationship between the differing
daughter languages.

OK - neo gu could, of course, construct two or three (or
more) conlangs and then try to derive a protolanguage from
them.  That approach has been suggested before, but it is
fraught with difficulties.

IMO it is best to concentrate first on the protolanguage.
Having got that sorted out, one can derived daughter
languages; and the exercise seems to me only worth the
effort if one's going to derives at least two interestingly
different daughter languages.

[snip]
>
> Is stress going to be important ?

Stress and/or tone must surely be important when deriving
daughter language(s).  but, as i say, my advice is to
concentrate first on the protolanguage.

-- 
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.
[WELSH PROVERB]