Print

Print


Raymond Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 >>>
If Carlos does have /h/, then there seems to me no reason not to have  /x/
which could have [h] as an allophone.  IIRC both Mandarin Chinese and
Spanish /x/ have this allophonic variant.
<<<
This makes me wonder about [d] vs. [t], [k] vs. [g], and [b] vs. [p] in
chinese? I was told that these pairs show contrastive(un)aspiration or
ejection, not (un)voicing. is that true? a pair od [r] and [l] would also be
a problem i think.

 >>>
 >yes, another hoaxlang with BrSc--did i write it right? and how
>should i articulate/execute it?--i feel a trend is taking on...
Sorry, I don't understand the reply.  _All_ conlangs are "hoaxlangs".
I should've thought it was pretty obvious how Interlect is articulated; as
BrSc has a limited range of consonants and all its syllables are just plane
open syllables with no consonant clusters, articulation is not exactly a
mystery. As for executing a language, whether "hoax" or not - it's normally
done by writing and speaking it.  If the language had a complicated system
of writing or was difficult to pronounce, then there might be a problem, I
guess. I don't understand what trend either?  I see _very little_ in common
between Interlect and BrSc.
<<<
I understand "hoaxlang" as "hoax auxiliary language". By
"articulation" and "execution" I referred to the articulation of the name
"BrSc" which is not obvious to me. By "trend" I referred to the fact that
you and Carlos wrote that Interlect and BrSc are conlangs made as if they
could be IALs. I like artlangs designed as would-be IALs and I would love to
learn how much yours and Carlos' differ by reading more on their respective
webpages.
Mathias


_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com