Leo Moser wabbe:

> One exception to the lack of a debate was the
> Eo-Ido squabble that centered on E-o correlatives.
> Esperanto pronounced all vowels in succession in
> the correlativetables  (and elsewhere) as separate
> syllables with "hiatus" between them. Ido seemed
> to feel a need to change the rule -- when and if the
> first element was an I or U. But did this reform
> help or hurt pronunciability? More significantly,
> perhaps, did it in fact actually change the
> pronunciations for many?

Well, respecting IALs I don't think it makes a lot of difference if
you pronounce {piano} as /pjano/ (diphthongue), /pi.ano/ (hiatus),
/pijano/ (glide) or /pi?ano/ (stop), as longer as there are not
minimal pairs and the {i} is not stressed.  I would thing that any
viable conIAL should allow a variety of accents/idiolects and still
being understandable.  Enforcing one kind of pronunciation (hiatus or
diphthongue) would make it a good conlang that many people could
master, but not really an IAL.  Well, that was personal opinion.

> Let's look at this from an artlang point of view.
> Would you have the following pronounced as
> one or two syllable words in your languages?
> (As "Imaginary words," they are marked by *;
> please don't worry if some are actual words
> in some natlang.)
> If we opt for two syllables, we get such initial
> combos as the following:
> Initial [dj] in: *dieto, *dieno, *dialo etc.
> Initial [sj] in: *siesto, *sievo, *siamo etc.
> Initial [kj] in: *kiano, *kiepto, *kielo etc.
> Initial [vj] in: *viato, *vieno, *violo etc.
> Initial [gj] in: *giapo, *gieno, *giosto etc.
> Initial [bj] in: *bialo, *biento, *biesto etc.
> Initial [mj] in: *mielo, *miano, *mioso etc.
> Initial [fw] in: *fuoco, *fuano, *fuero etc.
> Initial [lw] in: *luano, *luego, *luiso etc.
> Initial [pw] in: *pueblo, *puepo, *puoso etc.
> Initial [gw] in: *guano, *guero, *guido etc.
> Initial [kw] in: *kualo, *kueno, *kuoto etc.
> Initial [dw] in: *dualo, *dueno, *duito etc.
> Initial [rw] in: *ruano, *ruino, *rueso etc.
> Would these be safer to define as three syllables?
> What differing effects would the results have in
> an artlang? Would it be easier to sing in one
> form or another? Would poetry be easier in
> one form or another?

Well, Biwa, my newest conlang do allow CLV combinations where C is a
consonant and L is an aproximant (central or lateral).  Well, some
restrictions apply, following your examples: /vj/ would be imposible
since there is no /v/, the same applies to /fw/, but /p\w/ is
posible... well it would probably became [p\_G] (velarized voiceless
bilibial fricative).  /dj/ and /sj/ wouldn't exist either but they
would become [dZ] and [S] respectively, all other cluster are

Well, that if you write them: "djeto" /dZetI/, "sjesto" /SEst@/,
"cjano" /kjAn@/, "gjapo" /gjAp@/, "bjalo" /bjAl@/, "mjelo" /mjelI/,
"fvoco" /p\wowkU/, "lvano" /lwAn@/, "pveblo" /pweblI/, "gvano"
/gwAn@/, "qualo" /kwAl@/, "dvalo" /dwAl@/, "rvalo" /rwAl@/, etc.

If you write "dieto" it would become /di.etI/ [di:jet_hI], with
primary estress in "di" and secundary stress in "e" and a little glide
separating the vowels.  The same applies for all other glides.

In Chleweyish, "dieto" wuld also be thrisyllabic"/di:.@tO/, stressed
in "di", but "diéto" would be nomminally trisyllabic: /dI.e:tO/,
stressed in "e", but would be [dje:tO] in fast speech.  In other
words: above clusters are not allowed in carefull speech, but any
unstressed closed vowel besides another vowel would become a glide in
fast speech.

In Hangkerimce all syllables are CV(N), where C cannot be null, and V
is not a diphthong... however, some times V can be realized as a
raising or falling diphthong or even a triphthong.

> Combinations of -oa- -eo- etc. face the danger
> that English speakers insert a semivowel, making
> such things as -owa- and -eyo-. This is, to a
> degree, another issue.
> As I undersand it, Klingon has no sequences
> of vowel, so that solves that in the Klingon
> arena. But many artlangs have, especially the
> kinder and gentler ones.
> Best regards,                              LEO
>     Leo J. Moser