[YG Conlang Archives] > [ceqli group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
on 4/21/02 1:46 AM, uaxuctum at uaxuctum@hidden.email wrote: >>> Diphthongs like "ea" and "ey", or "ao" contrasted with >>> "au", simply should not exist. >> I follow you on ao and au, but why the first? Is it that "ea" > tends to >> sound like "eya"? > > I don't find any particular difficulty in distinguishing > between "au" and "ao". I mean, when pronounced with > Spanish clear u and clear o. In Spanish there are some > pairs such as "tao"--[ta.o], the balance of ying and yang; > and "tau"--usually [taw] but also [ta.u], the Greek letter. I'd have no trouble if 'au' is a diphthong and 'ao' is not, but if they're both diphthongs they sound very similar when I pronounce them ?because of the glide you mention. If both are two-syllables, I don't have much problem. > > I think the problem English speakers find with ao/au > is that they use English diphthong "ow" /AU/ (the > weak part of which is an open u, i.e. a middle sound > between those of Spanish u and o) to imitate both. > Try to pronounce "ao" as English "ah-aw", "au" as > English "ah-ooh" and "aw" as English "ow". Do you > still find them that difficult to distinguish? > > >>> These are the reason >>> Lojban switched to ai, ei, oi, au, V'V as its only >>> vowel combinations. >>> >>> V.V, with a glottal stop between the vowels, sounds >>> much uglier to me than V'V with an h-sound. But now I >>> see that neither should be necessary. >>> >>> Why make new letters for [dZ] and such? This was my >>> idea in the C(C)V(V) form. CC does not include CW. So >>> this would allow for both "jai" and "djai", assuming j >>> is changed to be the single phoneme [Z] like it should >>> be. > > Like it should be? For which undefeatable reasons? > Using <j> for /Z/, and <y> for /j/ only creates the > unnecessary problem of leaving <x> unused and /@/ > uncomfortably unassigned and unassignable unless > introducing such a horrendously awkward oddity as > using <x> for /@/, or some non-letter such as <->. > > >> Here's what I believe the CC combinations would >>> be, though I must be forgetting some: >>> >>> dj dz jb jd jg jv sf sk sp st ts xf xk xp xt zb zd zg >>> zv > > Personally, I find <jb>, <jd> or <jg> "uglier" than > <xf>, <xp> or <xt>. Yes. To non-Russian ears they will seem ugly. > > >>> (Those x-combinations are ugly as heck. If only x were >>> c.) > > And why not just assigning /S/ to <c>? Is there any > good reason against that? > > >> And I would be happy in this case with letter values: >> >> c /S/ >> j /Z/ >> y /j/ >> w /w/ >> x schwa > > Certainly, I would be COMPLETELY HORRIFIED with the > uncomprehensibly oddity of <x> = /@/ > > AARRRRGHHHH !!! X-(S) > > and even more considering that the alternative assignment > > c /S/ > j /j/ > y /@/ > w /w/ > x /Z/ > > quite on the contrary shows no oddity at all but makes > pretty good sense. > > >> The last is annoying, but this way we get to keep y and w with > their obvious >> values, > > Obvious? For whom? I recall a post to Google groups by > a Swede some time ago complaining about English use > of letter <y>, which he "instinctively felt" as a vowel > letter, for the consonant /j/, which he "instinctively", > "obviously", associated with letter <j>. It would be nice to start fresh with the Shavian alphabet or something for this, because the roman letters have so much emotional weight. My problem, for example, with 'y' as schwa is that I want to pronounce it as i in 'bit' and as /j/ when it's adjacent to a vowel. I'm considering x as schwa simply because it has so many other values that one is less likely to knee-jerk and get it wrong. See: http://www.geocities.com/ceqli/alph.htm And see if this system would be bearable. I consider the use of x for schwa to be a temporary expedient for those who have nothing to use except the straight Roman alphabet. Would everybody be happy with this if x were replaced with ø or ¦ or ö? The advantage to ¦ is that it could also be spelled 'oe', provided that it is prohibited for two full vowels to juxtapose elsewhere in the language. I could live with that. It would eliminate all questions about whether ao and au and eo and eu are pronounceable. And, for that matter, schwa and French 'eu' could be allophones of ¦, giving us a Jacques Clouseau vowel:) Here are what I see as the advantages 1. X as schwa. It uses up all 26 letters and doesn't need any more. 2. ? as schwa. It feels more natural, and is, at least, vowel in form. -- >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/