On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 12:56:22 -0500, Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 12:08:57 +1100, A Walker Scott <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>I have returned, but under a new name -- A. Walker Scott.  I've been a
>>member here for decades under my real name, Adam Walker, but decided to
>>switch to my nom de plume, so as to give this name a bigger footprint on
>>the web.
>>Anyway here is a phonetic inventory on which I'm eliciting comment:
>>i  }  u
>>e 8 o
>>  @
>> {  6  O
>Nothing oddball yet!
>>all of i, e, {, 8, @, 6, o, O may be nasalized

I thought that the 4 central vowels were a little odd, especially with only 3 each of front and back, and also the large number of nasal vowels.


>Interesting that /i/ doesn't pattern with the other high vowels, but easy to think of explanations for.
>>m  n  N
>>p   t   k
>>mb nd Ng
>>v\  j
>Still not oddball... the /v\/ vs. /w/ contrast is perhaps a narrow one, but that little amount of spice certainly doesn't hurt here.
>>Permissible consonant clusters:
>Let me line these up in columns.
>>mw, my,     mn
>>    ny
>>    Ny
>>pw, py, pl, pn, pt (realized as pr)
>>bw, by, bl
>>tw, ty
>>    ky, kl
>>        gl
>/lv\/ looks out of place, but maybe it came from /lw/ or /v\l/ or such, so no sweat.  /pt/ lines up I guess with /mn/ and /pn/, but the real question is what sense a cluster "realised as [pr]" can be said to be synchronically /pt/, especially when /r/ is a phoneme.  Is this just diachronics, or is there some synchronic alternation /p/ + /t/ > [pr]?
>And we can't neglect to consider the gaps.  That at /tl dl/ is totally normal; that at /kw gw Nw/ is piquant but might well result from early uniphonation of these groups changing them into something else.  That at /dj gj/ is, I'll give it to you, oddball -- there might have been a palatalisation that only affected voiced stops but that's a pretty weird condition on it, offhand (unless /j/ happened to absorb /dj gj/ in a way that lacked a voiceless parallel).  That at /nw/ is also oddball.
>>Syllables may be:
>Reordering and respacing:
>>  V
>>  VV
>>  VC
>> CV
>> CVV
>> CVC
>And that is the oddest ball of the lot!  Despite what some word generation tools etc. might lead one to think, structural dependencies between onset and coda like this are uncommon.  And if there is one particular thing that might be overstepping the line of plausibility it is the absence of *VVC: what reason on earth could there be to specially preclude (C)VVC when the onset happens to be zero?