Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Phoneme-Light FS

Expand Messages
  • David Parke
    ... By my reckoning, Proto-germanic had 12 vowel phonemes. Standard German has 17 or 18 vowel phonemes depending on if you consider äh and eh to be
    Message 1 of 10 , Mar 31, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "wakuran_wakaran" <hakans@w...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "David Parke" <parked@x> wrote:
      > >
      > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "wakuran_wakaran" <hakans@w...>
      > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Roly Sookias/Roley Sukius"
      > > > <xipirho@r...> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "wakuran_wakaran"
      > <hakans@w...>
      > > > > wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > --- In folkspraak@yahoogroups.com, "Roly Sookias/Roley
      > Sukius"
      > > > > > <xipirho@r...> wrote:
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > I basically ahve two approaches to FS phonolgy and so have
      > 2
      > > > > > > main 'versions' - do what the majority do (i.e. EN and DE
      > > > > usually)
      > > > > > in
      > > > > > > order to up recognition for key langs, or make it so it can
      > be
      > > > > said
      > > > > > > by everyone. Here's an outlien fo my latter approach:
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > /sk/* -> /sk/ as the Danes, Dutch and Icelanders don't
      > have /S/
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Although the Dutch often have s, I think, like vis and
      > wassen.
      > > > > (fish,
      > > > > > wash)
      > > > > >
      > > > > > > /x/* -> nothing as English doesn't have /x/ or /C/
      > > > > >
      > > > > > What would this mean? naxt, rext, lixt becoming natt, rett,
      > lett?
      > > > > It
      > > > > > looks similar to Scandinavian (I believe Sca kt is borrowed
      > from
      > > > > Low
      > > > > > German) but I still doubt if it is a good approach.
      > > > >
      > > > > Yeah, well probably /na:t/, /ret/, /lit/ - after all, English
      > has
      > > > > lost the /x/ too in prono. Otherwise they'd have to have /k/s
      > and
      > > > > that'd be a bit more proto than even proto germanic! The main
      > > > > principle of my 'phoneme-light' version is that a phoneme only
      > > > > exists in FS that exists in a reasonable form in every Germ
      > lang.
      > > > > English lacks /x/, so thus /x/ is out! As an Englishman I know
      > very
      > > > > few who have trouble with /x/ - it being commonly used as a
      > sound
      > > > > expressing disgust (e.g. [jVx] is often said for [jVk], as is a
      > > > > nonsense word sounding something like [I@x]), and I spose [hj]
      > > > > in 'huge' could be deemed close enough to [C] to be
      > the 'English
      > > > > varient' of the phoneme for the purposes of FS.
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > > That seems weird. It would look weirder than using i or j,
      > even...
      > > > (nait/najt). Also, I think this would likely create homonyms.
      > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > > /w/* and /hw/* -> /v/
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > One problem with this is that it could possibly create
      > ambiguity
      > > > > > between words like
      > > > > > wheat/white and words like wit/(to know).
      > > > >
      > > > > Yeah, but Swedish seems to have got by OK merging /ai/*
      > and /e:/
      > > > > dunnit? :-) ...and ANYWAY, /vit/ would be 'know', /vi:t/ white,
      > > > > and /ve:t/ wheat, so there'd be no confusion.
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > > I think wit/"know" should have a long vowel, but the vowel
      > > > conjugation in the proto-form seems to have been quite complex.
      > > > Possibly due to ablaut(?).
      > > >
      >
      > Check out www.verbix.com for info, (although the online version seems
      > to be under maintenance at the meantime.)
      >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > > /r/ can be said as [r] or [R] or [r\]
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Vowels:
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > /a/ can be said as [a] or [A] or [{] as long as it's not
      > > > > confused
      > > > > > > with /e/
      > > > > > > /o/ can be said as [O] or [Q] or [o]
      > > > > > > /u/ can be said as [U] or [u] or [Y]
      > > > > > > /i/ can be said as [I] or [i]
      > > > > > > /e/ can be said [E] or [e]
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > /a:/ can be said as [a:] or [A:]
      > > > > > > /o:/ can be said as [o:] or [oU]/[ou] or [O:]
      > > > > > > /u:/ can be said as [u:] or [y:]
      > > > > > > /i:/ is said as [i:]
      > > > > > > /e:/ can be said as [e:] or [E:] or [Ei]/[ei] (i.e. an /ei/
      > > > > > diphthong
      > > > > > > of any kind)
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > There are no dipthongs apart from varient pronunciations of
      > the
      > > > > > long
      > > > > > > vowels.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > What d'you think?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > I have some extra vowels, but I guess the outline is alright.
      > > > >
      > > > > Well yeah, I have some extra ones in my complex version, but
      > this
      > > > > version goes by the rule 'if it's not everywhere, it's not in
      > FS'!
      > > >
      > > > I say it again, if the sound system gets too simple, it would
      > > > possibly create homonyms (and ambiguity).
      > >
      > > I agree, if you look at the number of vowel phonemes that Proto-
      > Germanic had, that would
      > > be about the right number. I'm not saying we should have the exact
      > same vowels as PG,
      > > but a similar number is perhaps the necessary amount. Or you could
      > do a census of the
      > > number of vowel phonemes in each of the source langs and calculate
      > the average amount.
      > > If that number was for example 16, then we should perhaps use the
      > 16 most common
      > > phonemes from among the source languages. This won't necessarily be
      > sounds that are
      > > common to all the sourcelangs but it will be ones that are
      > reasonably widespread.
      > >
      >
      > I believe my sound inventory is approximately as complex as German,
      > with "foreign" words ideally being pronounced as close to their
      > language of origin as possible.
      >
      > > Reading some of the very early postings on this group, some members
      > even suggested
      > > think we could have just a,e,i,o,u and no distinction between long
      > and short vowels. A
      > > Spanish level of vowel simplicity in other words. I definitely
      > think this would not work with
      > > a Germaninc language, since the distinction between long and short
      > vowels, dipthongs
      > > and umlauts is basically an integral part of all Germanic
      > languages. Germanic stems are
      > > for the most part monosyllables and need those extra vowel sounds
      > to distinguish words.
      > > Either that or we go tonal. (not without precedent in Germanic
      > languages)
      >
      > I don't think Swedish and Norwegian really are "tonal", though. They
      > rather have a melodic pitch accent, which could sometimes distinguish
      > homonyms, emerging out of the Scandinavian grammatical usage.
      > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melodic_accent

      By my reckoning, Proto-germanic had 12 vowel phonemes.

      Standard German has 17 or 18 vowel phonemes depending on if you consider "äh" and
      "eh" to be different or the same.

      My dialect of FS has 15 vowel phonemes. I originally had 13 'nemes but I added 2 new
      ones recently (in order to avoid homonyms basically)

      I revise what I said. FS should have AT LEAST as many vowel phonemes as PG, but
      probably more.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.