Print

Print


	

	

	

	

This point on continuants makes me think of a feature I came up with for 
my first conlang, which I called "sustainability".  Or rather two 
features, articulatory sustainability and acoustic sustainability.  
Probably nothing new under the sun but I haven't seen anything 
contrasting the two so far.  Anyway, grouping sound types by maximum to 
zero stricture (where stricture differs), I came up with below.  Where 
two/more types share both values and also the same stricture, they're 
differentiated by some secondary or co-articulation.  Wonder if there's 
any use in such a description beyond distinguishing say stop from tap or 
glide from vowel...


Sustainability: _Articulatory_ _Acoustic_

central oral stops       +                            -
lateral oral stops        +                            +
nasal stops                  +                            +
taps/flaps                    -                             -
trills                              +                            +
fricatives                      +                            +
glides/semivowels      -                             -
other approximants   +                            +
non-approximants      +                            +
(low vowels)

On 4/26/2018 4:26 PM, Logan Kearsley wrote:
> On 26 April 2018 at 12:00, C. Brickner<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>> The Senjecas syllable structure is (C)(V)V(X)(C). I am using an X to represent a group of sounds for which I cannot find a name. The group includes all the consonants that are not stops (plosives). It is not the sonorant group because the sonorants do not include the fricatives. It is not the continuant group because the continuants do not include the nasals.
> It seems strange to me that nasals should be excluded from the group
> of continuants, because nasals can indeed be pronounced
> *continuously*.
>
> If I were you, I'd just call the group continuants, and then make a
> note in the language description that in the context of the analysis
> of this language, nasals pattern with, and thus are considered to be,
> continuants, even though that is not standard terminology. It would
> not be the first time someone had fudged standard terms to make more
> sense for a particular language.
>
> -l.
>
>