On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 6:19 PM, BPJ <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On 2012-12-16 22:29, Nikolay Ivankov wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Melroch <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>  Do _r, l_ both denote /R\/? If yes I'd definitely make /B\/ a phoneme and
>>> denote it with _r_!
>> Sorry, I wasn't able to understand the notation, for I'm not that good at
>> SAMPA. Did You mean epiglottal thrill by /RV and bilabial thrill by /BV?
>> If
>> this is the case, then my explanation is following.
> That's CXS <> which until about a year
> ago was used by everyone on this list since the listserv still
> messed up Unicode.  It's also very handy when writing on my
> 'smart' phone, which is dumb when it comes to Unicode...
> And it's not V but backslash plus forslash, where the latter
> is the closing phonemic transcription delimiter.
> And I now realize that you use я for an epiglottal trill
> and not as an alternative to ʁ as i first thought.
> There is no notation for epiglottal trill in CXS.
> Perhaps R\` can be used for epiglottal trill and
> R` for epiglottal approximant.  I have used v` for
> the labiodental flap already.

Ok, I have to check this, sorry for a misinterpretation.

> (BTW I can't produce an epiglottal trill.  IIRC I
> read somewhere that some people are anatomically
> disabled when it comes to (some) epiglottal articulations.)

I can't produce all the sounds I write here also.

 The aim was to create a language with as little number of consonants that
>> would be as exotic as possible. So I've ended up with just 2: [?] and
>> [O\_v]. The symbols r, n, h and d (z in previous versions) were thought to
>> modify the surrounding vowels. In particular, _r_ should be the sign
>> denoting the strident phonation.
> I understand the constraints and find them interesting.
> I can't help wondering whether the languages of such
> a species would have any consonants at all!  I'd
> imagine they would have only vowels with varying registers
> and phonations.

Well, that's for the weirdness sake. I think getting rid of consonants
entirely would be too engelangish, and keeping just two in modern Yanyarin
gives it a more natlang flavor. By the way, they are encountered only as
the first consonants of the words, which may be really long - modern
Yanyarin is polysynthetic.

> Imagine a language with some 20 vowel nuances in the
> front/back/height dimension, all of which can occur
> combined with three quantities and any of modal
> voiceless, breathy and creaky voice. I guess that for
> humans to be able to pronounce it there would need to
> be glottal stops inbetween the vowels! The [ʔ] wouldnˈt
> be a phoneme thoughˌ but automatically inserted between
> every two phonemes.  That would be way more phonemes than
> any known human natlang has!

Let's count: open/closed, front/back, pharyngeal,  strident vs.
hollow, nasalized vs. dentalized, 5 tone changes (11 tones in total). Maybe
also different vowel lengths, but I think this would be already sewn in the
language, since the word-roots of Modern Yanyarin are mostly triphthongs.
But the scheme in its current status gives 360 different vowels already.
When I'm thinking of putting additional vowels in the center of the vowel
square and in its center, that will give some 810 possibilities, but then
I'm just out of "normal" characters that a "layman" can read.

Strident and hollow phonations used to be creaky and breathy in previous
versions. Only voiced - that is the original idea of my friend that this
people rather sing than just speak.

[ʔ] is a delimeter for words in the Proto, which has a ʔVCV structure. In
modern Yanyarin they are gradually lost due to sandhi in the polysynthetic
words. How am I going to separate word-roots: don't ask, I don't know.
Maybe the speakers are keen enough to hear the difference. AFAIK, Yanyarin
developed compounds and classifiers for clarification at least twice during
the transition from Proto to Modern.

 Thus, I'd prefer to keep _r_ rather than _l_, especially since all the
>> b-sounds will in the end dissipate to u/nasalization. _Yanyarin_ in the
>> end
>> sounds more, you know, agressive than _yanyalin.
> I didnt mean you should scrap /я/.  It only seemed to me that
> since you wrote "l ~ [ʀ]/[я], r ~[я]" you weren't sure whether
> _l_ and _r_ would denote two distinct sounds.  You also wrote
> "b~ [b]/[ʙ]", and I thought [ʙ] is so cool a sound that you
> might make /ʙ/ a phoneme in its own right, and use one of _l r_
> for it if they turn out not to be distinct.  Perhaps you
> could use _p_ for /ʙ/! (Yeah I'm aware of the level of
> weirdness you have to think at to come up with that idea! ;-)

Well, the point is that I'd like to include a glottal thrill, but I don't
know what to do with epiglottal and uvular, since they are also nice. I
could have reserved _l_ for something else, and maybe I will do it, just
pointing out for myself that _r_ will become either of three in different
dialects of proto-Yanyarin.

_p_ for [ʙ] would have been a really nice idea if _p_ was not sort of
reserved for the bilabial click of the Modern. It replaces _b_ due to the
fact that the new elite takes this sound from another tribe whose members
are considered as sacred by definition, or something like that.

I also like [ʙ] - some 5 years ago I've been discussing with my polyglot
friend why don't we encounter this sound in natlangs, and we didn't knew it
actually existed. Now as I know there are such natlangs, I'd like to
have [ʙ] in a conlang, but, as said, you'll never hear it in Modern
Yanyarin anyway. And for the Proto it would be enough for me by now just to
have vocabulary of proto-roots with no real grammar, and I'm mostly
interested what consonant of Proto has transformed to what kind of
phonation in Modern. Maybe [в] will appear in full strength in some other
conlang sometimes :-)

Many thanks for the interest and suggestions!

Best wishes,


>>  /bpj
>>> Den söndagen den 16:e december 2012 skrev Nikolay Ivankov:
>>>  Following the advises of of Alex Fink, I've revisited the phonology of
>>>> Proto-Yanyarin. As before, the collection of consonants that the
>>>> speakers
>>>> of Yanyarin and can pronounce is limited almost entirely to labial to
>>>> labio-dental and from uvular to glottal. I have moved the existing
>>>> sounds
>>>> more towards the glottis, so that the sound inventory looks more suited
>>> for
>>>> a "species with a weak tongue that always sing". The orthography was
>>>> also
>>>> changed, mostly for the sake of eughraphy.
>>>> The chart includes:
>>>> m             n
>>>> b              g   q   '/?
>>>> w   d         j    x   h
>>>>       s               l   r
>>>> Here
>>>> m ~ [m]; n~[ŋ]; b~ [b]/[ʙ], g~[ɢ], q ~ [ʡ], '/? ~ [ʔ], w ~ [β], d ~ [ð],
>>> j
>>>> ~ [ʁ̞]/[ʕ̞], x ~ [ʢ̞], s=?, h ~ [ɦ], l ~ [ʀ]/[я], r ~[я]/[glottal
>>>> thrill]
>>>> I don't know the precise value for ⟨s⟩ by now. The sound depicted by
>>>> this
>>>> letter would not exist in "modern" Yanyarin, and in some point ⟨s⟩ has
>>>> to
>>>> transform into ⟨r⟩ and ⟨d⟩. The voiced glottal thrill is one of the
>>>> nonhuman features of the speakers of Yanya.
>>>> In Proto- and modern Yanyarin there are 8 vowels:
>>>> i,y          v,u
>>>> e,ø
>>>>               a,o
>>>> The main difference of vowel chart form to normal one is that closedness
>>> of
>>>> the vowels is replaced by pharingealization. This is why I'm not able to
>>>> write this chart in the IPA right away. It is worth saying, however,
>>>> that
>>>> in this notation v ~ [ɨ].
>>>> Finally, I'd like to have schwa, "schwi" and "schwo" sounds on several
>>>> stages of Old Yanyarin and Middle. I haven't decided on the signs for
>>> them,
>>>> but presumably ⟨z⟩ and ⟨c⟩ would be used for two such sounds. However,
>>>> maybe it's better to use IPA for clearness, since this sounds won't be
>>>> in
>>>> use in modern Yanyarin.
>>>> Thanks for reading! Any suggestions? What am I missing? And thanks
>>>> again!
>>>> Kolya