Error during command authentication.

Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=111). The server is probably not started. LISTSERV 16.5 - CONLANG Archives



Re:    From: "Marcus Smith"

> Except for the glottal stop, each consonant may be geminate.

Maybe I'm getting ahead of things, but why make an exception of the glottal
If closure for the other stops can be prolonged, so can closure of the vocal
Also, how do you prolong a flap?  (By making it a trill?   That would work.)

> Phonotactics

> The syllable template is (C1)V(C2).  Within a root and derivational
> morphology, syllables divide as CV.CV.  The sequence CV1.V2C is
> and in such situations, the vowel closest to the stem deletes: CV1.C in
> case of prefixes, CV2C in suffixes.  Inflectional morphemes divide into
> syllables at the boundary, so it is possible to have CV.VC or VC.VC.

Does your language permit C1-V-C1?   bab    pop    ded

What do you mean by "divide into syllables at the boundary?  Are you saying
that morpheme-initial vowels or sequences of contiguous vowels can only
occur at the boundaries between inflectional and other types of morphemes?

> C1 may be any consonant word initially, but is mildly restricted after
> another consonant: the glottals ' and h may not occur after C.  When this
> happens, the glottal disappears, and the preceding C geminates.

I'm not sure what you mean here.   Are you saying that C1V.{h,'}V -->
C1V.C1V?   If so, then we're not talking about gemination AFAIK.    Your
process could create some homonyms.

C1V  plus hV   and C1 plus 'V would both be realized as C1V.C1V.

If, at this point, it is clear to you that I simply did not understand what
you meant, you may need to expand your explanation.

> V may be any vowel, either long or short.  However, if the preceding C is
> an alveolar obstruent, /i/ deletes, and /u/ fronts and de-rounds to /y/.
> If the deletion causes a sequence of three C's, the middle one deletes,
> unless it is /s/, in which case the first C deletes.

At the risk of exposing my relative ignorance of phonology, I'll ask why you
have these rules.   "y" is sort of close to /i/, so why have a rule that
deletes /i/ and substitutes in /y/ in the same environment?

> C2 may be any consonant word finally, but is severely restricted before
> another consonant.  Before another C, C2 must be unaspirated or
> to a following homorganic stop, e.g., ts > ds, td > dd, dt > tt, tk > dk.
> Note that this is not a restriction on codas, because this does not hold
> word finally, or in codas followed by a vowel, a situation found at the
> inflection-stem boundary

Are you describing clusters?   I thought clusters were forbidden by your
syllable structure.   I'm not familiar with the use of the term "coda" in
this context.

> Nasals always assimilate to a following consonant.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean.   Do you  mean that the nasal acquires
the same place as the following consonant?   e.g.    mata > nata?

> Short fricatives and short unaspirated stops may optionally voice
> intervocalicly.  Oddly enough, the word _hidu_ "to exist (inanimate
> subject)" cannot voice.  Maybe some others do too, but I haven't found
> yet.

Optional intervocalic voicing for purely phonological reasons seems
unnatural.   I think you should specify a "higher" purpose of such
alternation:   e.g.   informal vs. formal speech.

> Any suggestions for improving the system?

Though it would be wrong to criticize you for posting preliminary notes,
ultimately, you'll have to elaborate and spell more things out to make your
system easier to understand.   e.g.

I'm not sure what you mean by "assimilation" in your text.   In the stuff
I've read, "assimilation" usually refers to the assimilation of some
feature.   Like "duck" becoming "guck" (place assimilation) or "tuff"
becoming "suff" (manner assimilation).

I think that lots of restrictions on sequences of consonants make more sense
in a language that permits lots of clusters.   Simple syllable structure
makes for long words;   freer distribution of consonants could increase your
supply of short words.

I LIKE the idea that contiguous vowels signal boundaries between certain
kinds of morphemes;   that strikes me as elegant and "conlangy" in a good