Print

Print


Hallo conlangers!

On Monday 06 January 2014 18:00:48 Daniel Bowman wrote:

> [...]
> > Both rules strike me as utterly random and unnatural.  Why should
> > /ɔ/, but no other vowel, devoice velar stops, but no other stops?
> > Why should /ɑ/, but no other vowel, cause aspiration of sibilants
> > (which in itself is a rare thing)?  Do you have any diachronic
> > rationalization for these strange rules?
> 
> The devoicing of stops is indeed hard to explain: the stops in Angosey's
> phonemic inventory are: ʈ, ɖ,k, g, k͈, and the retroflexes do not show the
> same variation with vowel placement.

Wait ... no stops more forward than retroflex?  A language with
such a lopsided phoneme inventory can hardly be called
"naturalistic", but perhaps that is a non-issue here.  After
all, people don't complain about lack of naturalism in Lojban,
either, because that would be meaningless.

> Moving onward: perhaps devoicing of velar stops is due to roundedness of
> vowels;

Which does not make sense.  Why should the roundedness of a
vowel cause a preceding consonant to devoice?  Most instances
of conditioned sound change involve features spreading from one
segment to another, which obviously isn't the case here.

>       the only other rounded vowel in the inventory is u,and I do not
> believe I have any vocabulary examples of a voiced velar stop preceding a
> rounded close back vowel (I will have to look, though).
> Interestingly, however, I do have unvoiced velar stops before u,perhaps
> that is not a coincidence!
> 
> I do not see ɖ -> ʈ anywhere in my phonology thus far, but it might be nice
> and interesting to generalize the rule to force *all* stops to become
> unvoiced if they precede rounded vowels.
> 
> As far as diachronicity goes, I don't have much to say; I have not worked
> out the con-evolution of Angosey to any great extent.  In the legendarium,
> Angosey emerges full-fledged from the divine realm - this is of course
> probably not the real story, but that's what all the priests tell us.

OK.
 
> I'm not sure why ɑ aspirates sibilants; that is more difficult to justify.
> "It just does" - lame, I know, I will have to think on it.
> 
> I'm glad the dissimilation makes sense.  That one I introduced to avoid
> repeating ɑi, a duplication that I found distinctly not euphonious.

Fine.

--
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/index.html
"Bêsel asa Éam, a Éam atha cvanthal a cvanth atha Éamal." - SiM 1:1