Print

Print


On Tuesday, January 13, 2004, at 04:45 PM, Christian Thalmann wrote:

> --- In [log in to unmask], Gary Shannon <fiziwig@Y...> wrote:
>
>> I've always favored open syllables.  They are neat and
>> tidy and east to synthesize.  But there's a parsing
>> probelem with the spoken language.  When you hear
>> "konali" is that "ko nali" or is it "kona li"?
>
> In real languages, such ambiguity is often just accepted.
>
> You can avoid it in many ways, though.  For example, if
> the accent always falls on the first syllable of the word,
> /ko'nali/ must be "ko nali", nice "kona li" would be
> /'konali/.

Accent is the obvious means, surely. If it's stressed accent you're
using, then the vowel would probably be lengthened also, thus
making parsing even easier   :)

[snip]
> /'ko'nali/.  The accent could be stress or a different
> tone.

Yep - a tone accent, as in ancient Greek or many of langs of
west Africa (inter alia) is another obvious possibility.

I don't see any problem with parsing a language with only open
syllables, if the language is carefully designed. After all, both
versions of BrSc have only open syllables; in brScA there is never
any ambiguity in parsing (and, hopefully, won't be in BrScB).

> BTW, I loathe synthetic languages with simplistic
> phonologies.  They're often very inefficient with the
> number of syllables needed, often pack a lot of unwanted
> information into a word, and most importantly, they are
> just boring.  =P

Not half as boring as Euroclones  ;)

..and no conlang approaches the boredom generated by YAEDT (tho some
people just seem to love 'em).

Chacun à son goût.

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
[log in to unmask]    (home)
[log in to unmask]   (work)
===============================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760