Print

Print


On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Roger Mills <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> --- On Fri, 9/3/10, Adam Walker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > > In looking back at my old stuff on Graavgaln I find
> > the phonology just
> > > doesn't quite work form me anymore.  Here is what
> > it used to be:
> > >
> > > high unround:
> > >
> > > /i/, /I/, /1/, /U_c/, /M/ romanized as [ii]. [i],
> > [î], [ü], [üü]
> /i:/ /i/ /1/ /ü/ /ü:/
> > >
> > > high round:
> > >
> > > /y/, /Y/, /u\/, /U/, /u/ romanized as <˙˙>, etc
> /y:/ /y/ /u\/ /u/ /u:/
>
> > > mid unround:
> > >
> > > /e/, /E/, /@\/, /V/, /7/ romanized as <ee>,
> > <e>, <ę>, <ö>, <öö>
> /e:/ /e/ /@\/ /ö/ /ö:/
> > > mid round:
> > >
> > > /2/, /9/, /8/, /O/, /o/ romanized as <řř>,
> > <ř>, <â>, <o>, <oo>
> > >
> > > low unround:
> > >
> > > /a/, /A/ romanized as <ć>, <aa>
> /a/ /a:/
> > >
> > > low round:
> > >
> > > /&\/, /Q/ romanized as <ĺ>, <a>]
> a-ring, a-ring+long (for some reason can't do numeric codes)
>
> Note that this leaves all the central vowels short only, not unnatural I
> think.
>

This analysis is quite nice.  I believe the actual realizations of the short
vowels are as I have described them, but analyzing them this way makes a
nice neat chart which real life linguists sem to prefer to the messyness of
reality. ;-)



> > >
> > > Leaving aside the cludgy romainzation for the moment,
> > what specific
> > > complaints arise about this (admitedly large) vowel
> > inventory?
> > >
>
> Aside from the unnatural quantity...
>
> Could some of these (perhaps you already did this) be reduced to long ::
> short pairs? (as suggested above) Still a big phonemic inventory,
> however...but not much worse than English. Could some be allophones?
> Historical origins might be a problem. But Gwr has 18 vowels (basic 9,
> long/short) + central /r/ [3r\]-- historical origins are accounted for, but
> it involves reducing diphthongs, or (in some cases) whole words to
> monosyllables....
>
>
English *is* outrageous with its vowels.  As for allophones, no, I believe I
have minimal pairs quite a number of them in a rather small vocabulary
which I have preserved.  I do like the long/short thing though.  Maybe I
will go with that and loose the superflous qualities.

Adam