[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [txeqli] Glides vs. vowels, and nCnN



on 2/27/02 11:14 PM, Rob Speer at rob@hidden.email wrote:

> (Hi. I just joined the list. I'm a Lojbanist, and am interested in *eqli
> despite the terrible ambiguities I've seen in it so far. Mostly, I think
> the morphology is neat.)
> 
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 09:03:58PM -0800, Mike Wright wrote:
>> Regarding glides, I don't think they should coexist with certain types
>> of vowel combinations. It's too difficult to distinguish the following
>> pairs in connected speech:
>> 
>> bua bwa
>> bau baw
>> bai bay
>> bia bya
> 
> Is there anything to distinguish? To me it seems those are the same in
> each case, and that the second is how they should be written in Txeqli's
> morphology. The first uses dipthongs with weak vowels, which I believe
> should not at all coexist with Txeqli's entirely separate "weaks".

Yes, except that by the current rules, bua would be BU-ah, etc.
> 
>> Also, do you expect nCnN to be true in practice? If not, why not
>> narrow it down? Try listing all reasonable combinations, then look for
>> a relatively compact set of rules. But I would prefer a more complex
>> set of rules yeilding fewer bizarre possibilities such as /bdomen/ and
>> /kfey/--not to mention the theoretical possibility of horrors such as
>> /ksbqrmnlq/ or /bpbpbpqmqmqm/.
> 
> Those aren't theoretically possible; they have no vowels and thus no
> syllables.
> 
> I believe that the rule that a weak cannot be its own
> syllable would imply that you can't have three weaks in a row, in fact.
> Or is there a counterexample, a cluster of three weaks that can be
> prononuced between two vowels with no extra syllables?

We -could-, but nobody would like them  tinywa, gulnwa.
> 
>> Unlike syntax, the complexity of the morphophonemic rules shouldn't
>> have any practical impact on speakers, but only on those who are
>> creating new morphemes, which is not something that has to be done on
>> the fly.
> 
> Complexity?
> 
> The significant advantage I see to Txeqli is that its morphology is so
> dead simple.

I thank you.  That was the genesis, really, of it.  Now we have the stress
problem to deal with, which I hadn't given nearly enough thought to, I see
now.

-- 
>PLEASE NOTE MY NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS: rmay@hidden.email
> Rex F. May (Baloo)
> Daily cartoon at: http://www.cnsnews.com/cartoon/baloo.asp
> Buy my book at: http://www.kiva.net/~jonabook/gdummy.htm
> Language site at: http://www.geocities.com/ceqli/Uploadexp.htm
>Discuss my auxiliary language at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/txeqli/