Print

Print


One thing that continues to puzzle me about the phonology debate is that 
Asian auxlangers themselves seem about as "clueless" as their Western 
counterparts. I suppose we may ignore Frater; given its Greco-Latin roots, 
it had to adopt a quasi-European phonology. But what about Babm and Noxilo?
Both are Japanese, both feature phonemic vowel length (of major Western 
projects, only Occidental makes that mistake), and both maintain evil 
oppositions such as l/r and b/v.

Noxilo has no ned for this. Given its extra-European sources, these 
distinctions (and the voiced/voiceless one as well) could be dropped. Just 
pick source words that don't require the distinctions! Yet it doesn't 
happen. Why? If accessible phonology is so important, why doesn't it turn 
up in an Asian auxlang? (I would add that Noxilo's author does allow 
buffering to break up consonant clusters.)

Babm is a priori, so it really doesn't need the Western-style phonology. 
Yet it has it. It's true that it follows a syllabic approach, so the l/r 
distinction is technically le/ra, but why not make this le/la or re/ra? 
(After all, he uses z for j, making the j/z pair zi/zo.)

Steve