[YG Conlang Archives] > [romconlang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Anthony <mamercus88@hidden.email> wrote:
>
>
> --- In romconlang@yahoogroups.com <romconlang%40yahoogroups.com>, Eric
> Christopherson <rakko@...> wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 30, 2010, at 10:26 PM, Anthony wrote:
> >
> > > I've been rethinking the Lim1guam1 La2ti2nam1 series of fricatives.
> Here is my current arrangement, presented for your consideration:
> > > ch [tS] < ti, te, ki, ke
> > > zh [dZ] < di, de, gi, ge
> > > sh {S] < si, se
> > > q [t_s\] < [s_\t_s\] < str
> > > j [d_z\] < dr
> > > x [s\] < [t_s\] tr
> >
> > Are these meant to be the same sounds as in Mandarin? If so, _ch zh sh_
> should be retroflexed, and retroflexes are quite likely to arise from
> coronal stop+r -- rather than the alveolopalatal series you have coming from
> that.
> >
> > > Which do you like more for the nasal level tone? lim1 or lin1?
> >
> > Personally I kind of like the -m1 form, because it reminds me of
> Portuguese, but apart from Portuguese it's unusual.
> >
> I prefer the -m1 form, because it reminds me that this is still a romlang
> (I might simplify it to -m, since the 1 is implicit; but tone sandhi might
> invalidate that consideration).
>
> It seems to me that a romlang would be more likely to have an
> alveolopalatal series and a retroflex series, even if the romanization would
> be similar to Mandarin.
> So what about this?
>
> ch, zh, sh - retroflex < str, dr, tr
> q, j, x - alveolopalatal < ki, gi, si
> c, z, s - coronal < ti, di, sV[-i]
>
I think you might concider flipping str and tr. It just seems more logical
to me. YMMV.
Adam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]