|
Am 16.09.2012 23:47, schrieb Mike
S.:
> What is the phonological value of <h>,
which I have been using
> experimentally?
Nothing but [x, h] makes any sense.
Agreed, and probably only one of /x h/ should be
allowed. The other alternative is that /h/ is pronounced as
the breathy-voiced glottal fricative which is how I suspect
most English speakers are pronouncing Lojban <'>
anyway, but that's a tricky sound cross-linguistically,
isn't it. I remember some Eastern European saying on the
Lojban list that he was using [G] for <'>, which I
take as another indication that contrastive /h x/ is
problematic.
Really? [x] is hard to distinguish from [h] for English
speakers? The Lojban speakers I have heard/talked to in Lojban
didn't seem to have trouble with it, and I didn't notice anything
special, but of course I haven't heard everyone's Lojban by far.
Still, I wouldn't mind having /x/ and /h/ be different phonemes,
the latter being either <'> or <h>, while /x/ would
simply be <x>, i.e. what Lojban does.
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 agree with you on the basic seven vowels /a e i o u w
y/=[a E i O u y 9] where /y/ could also be [@] and /a/ is
any low vowel.
A phonemic /y/ = [@]? Why not just use that as buffer vowel
for the otherwise vowel-less predicates. I find it helpful that
schwa so far only appears in predicates, it makes things more
distinct in my ears.
I would say that /i u/ could be underlyingly
semivowels or glides which I will symbolize as [I U] or
consonants [j w], but can also be realized as a sequence of
vowel and consonant. Yes they serve as separators. I would
constrain vowel strings composed of /a e i o u/ as follows:
No geminates which means no /ii uu/; no sequences of two
non-high vowels /ae ao/ etc. However everything else is
allowed with the following sanctioned phonetic variation:
1) After a non-high vowel, /i u/ is pronounced [I U],
but may also be pronounced [ji wu].
i.e. each of /ai au ei eu oi ou/ = [aI aU EI EU OI
OU] or [aji awu Eji Ewu Oji Owu] respectively.
2) Before any vowel, /i u/ pronounced [I U] or [j w],
but may also be pronounced [ij uw]
i.e. each of /ia ua iu ui/ etc. = [Ia Ua Iu Ui] etc. or [ija
uwa iju uwi] etc. respectively.
3) between two vowels, /i u/ are pronounced [I U] or
more likely [j w], though even [jij wuw] is allowed.
Wouldn't it be simpler to assign [w] and [j] to seperate
letters, <w> and <y> (and not use <y> for schwa)
? Treat them as C and forbid all diphthongs for example. Seems
much simpler.
> 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.
Yes though not all of them. The way I look at it, the reason
that most of them start with the glottal stop follows from a
more general rule that all syllables start with a non-null
onset.
Hehe, that's exactly how I see it as well. I just had an
argument with someone on the Lojban list about this and they
wouldn't accept this idea. Is <q> really more visually
appealing than <.> ? Maybe it is, but it's also much heavier
on the eye. I'm probably biased due to my Lojban background. I
think as long as <'> doesn't become [?], I won't compain.
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
--
pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo
doị mèlbi mlenì'u
.i do càtlu ki'u
ma fe la xàmpre ŭu
.i do tìnsa càrmi
gi'e sìrji se tàrmi
.i taị bo pu cìtka lo gràna ku
|