[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Mike S., On 16/09/2012 03:06:
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 3:47 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email <mailto:and.rosta@hidden.email>> wrote: Even if all phonological forms are interim, I'd rather not use w & y in this way, partly because I would be against making wa distinct from what we have currently been writing as u'a, but which I would rather start writing as ua, given that I can't envisage any unsilly phonological status for <'>, and also that I'm in favour of Mike's idea of <'> being an allograph of <q>, and partly because I'm in favour of y being an extra vowel. So I'd go for either assigning an unassigned C to interjections, e.g. q, or else partioning cV so that c + certain Vs are or begin interjections while c + the other Vs are or begin illocutionaries that have a complement. What is the current consensus-in-flux phonology in a nutshell? I assume mostly like Lojban
I wouldn't take that for granted. It partly depends on the extent to which Xorban is conceived of as a reform of Lojban. To me it is to no extent a reform of Lojban, whereas clearly to Jorge it is, because Jorge's borrowing a lot of the phonological and morphological patterning from Lojban.
with <q>/<'> being the glottal stop?
Apparently.
Moderate stress on the first vowel of the variable sequence?
Unnecessary; it has no contrastive value. We have not discussed whether there will be tone, but -- assuming that if there were tone it would have low tone only on all word-final syllables -- having tone would affect the word boundary rules; word-final CVs could also be word-initial without ambiguity. So far we've been assuming that word-final CVs can't be word-initial.
What is the phonological value of <h>, which I have been using experimentally?
Nothing but [x, h] makes any sense.
Voiced velar fricative?
I have been assuming that is the value of <x>.
I don't think there's a problem with <'> being [h] (which gives us 25 extra variables) other than its stunning orthographic weirdness, so long as <x> is used in predicates but left unassigned for operators. Otherwise CCCi xi is going to clash with CCCi'i. This is definitely an issue, download Audacity and try it for yourself.
The orthographic weirdness is a problem. Furthermore, we have assigned <'> as an allograph of <q>, [?], and therefore bcda'afga'a is not "bcda'a fga'a" but rather "bcda 'afga'a". My preference is for allowing VVVV sequences and not using up a consonant on a vowel separator. If there were a consonant used as a vowel separator, [h] is too marked in that environment, and the separator should be <q> or <r>, the least marked in that environment. Using q would scupper the neat idea of using it as the name delimiter, so <r> would be the best choice for vowel separator. The system Jorge has in mind is for 6 rather than 7 vowels, no [y]. Strict CV phonotactics and no consonant-vowels. Plus a vowel-separator C. The system I have in mind is for 7 vowels. Phonotactics are that vowels must be flanked by consonants; and i & u are both vowels and consonants. The role of vowel separator is taken over by i & u, sometimes contrasting (after a) and sometimes not, for I would also disallow /eu/, /yu/, /oi/, /uu/, /ii/. In Jorge's system [eIui] would be ambiguous between /e yu wi/ and /e wi/, [eIuia] between /e yu wi ya/ and /e wi ya/ and /e yu ya/ and /e wu ya/ -- a proper mess. In my scheme, [eIuia] could only be /eiuia/. I might also consider allowing /i@, u@/, orthographically <ii, uu> in some environments, maybe any preconsonantal environment.
I am pretty sure I and And agree on the phonotactics of <y w>. If we are going to use these for interjections, I don't like *yi or *wu, but those are easily replaced with yay and waw.
Jorge's yi would be [i], unambiguous in isolation, but it leads to an overly feeble contrast between /i/ and /iyi/.
It seems like a waste of variables to me, but the Lojban crowd seems to dig their attitudinals, and I am actually starting to almost think 30 V/V'V variables total *is* enough, so maybe it's a good thing for the future Xorban sales brochure to have Lojban-like attitudinals.>
Lojban attitudinals begin with q followed by a vowel. --And.