You are correct: the "aya" rule is redundant.  I place that rule in front
because it denotes an ambiguity in the current romanization system that I
have to watch out for when I transform it into IPA.  The issue is rare but
arises due to the following:
The emotive aspect suffix is "aya," [AiA].
The partitive suffix is "ya" [jA].

Now: nouns almost never end in "a" so the spelling "-aya" is seldom
encountered - but it does exist.
Since all verbs in the present tense end in "a", the emotive aspect "-aya"
is quite common.
This ambiguity is not an issue in Angosey script, where the emotive aspect
is spelled using the first two glyphs on the first line and the partitive
suffix is written using the 12th glyph from left on the first line.
The document I'm referring to is this one: (same as what I
sent you offlist).
I will write up a nicer one soon.

The difference between "aya" as emotive aspect and "aya" as partitive
suffix is syllabification.  Ay-a versus a-ya.

As we've discussed offlist, the "oddball allophones" do require post-hoc
conhistory justification.  I will discuss some possibilities on list
tonight, if I have a chance.

Rule 30 is indeed a breathy voiced velar stop pronounced as Korean
ssang-kyeok.  And yes, there is an isolated click, and it is not
paralinguistic.  I passed on to you the trial YouTube slides, but I'll post
them here as well:
The click is always at the beginning of a syllable.  There may be other
regularities in its usage, I will have to check my lexicon.  However, the
click is one of the rarest phones in the language so there's not much to go

2014-03-15 18:58 GMT-04:00 Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]>:

> On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 23:09:22 -0400, Daniel Bowman <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >A couple of months ago I discussed my intent to produce a YouTube video
> showing how to pronounce Angosey.  As part of this, I decided to write an
> automatic Angosey orthography to IPA parser.  Thus, I had to come up with
> unambiguous rules that mapped my spelling system to IPA.  It turns out it
> takes forty rules to make this happen.  The rules must be applied in order.
> >
> >Here's the rule list:
> >
> >The first set deals with digraphs and trigraphs, followed by vowels and
> consonants.  The final rule simply removes apostrophes.
> Ah, that's one of the milder things "forty rules" could have meant!  There
> are maybe five rules here beyond what would exist in a straightforward
> one-to-one romanisation with digraphs, at least with a maximalist analysis
> re diphthongs.
> Of these five, the "aya" rule does not actually appear necessary if the
> "ay" rule is arranged to precede the "ya" rule, unless there's a subtlety
> about syllabification this misses.  Already I assume there's a subtlety of
> syllabification distinguishing [Ai.A] from [A.jA]: unless the first one
> actually has three nuclei [A.i.A] as written, these will sound very
> similar, perhaps with minor differences in length of transitions or
> something.
> And then the first four rules are the oddball allophony-type rules you've
> spoken of before here, which are great in the phonology-as-pure-patterning
> abstract, but I can't think of phonetic justifications for.
> Oh, and in rule 30, is that really a breathy-voiced [k] -- what does that
> mean, is it different to a breathy-voiced [g]?  And is there really one
> isolated click written "p"?  Is it somehow paralinguistic or confined to
> exclamations or whatnot?
> Alex