Re: Vulcan Word Generator (VWG) trials and tribulations Rob Zook Fri, 26 Mar 1999 17:23:13 -0600 At 03:16 PM 3/26/99 -0600, Saul Epstein wrote: >(Quotes Rob Zook: Thursday, March 25, 1999 7:02 PM) >>Does that mean you'd object horribly to a little tweeking here and >>there :) > >I'm just not sure how much room there is for tweaking without setting >off a cascade of little adjustments that amounts to enough of a change that >the whole has to be re-ratified. That only took us, what, a year and a >half last time? Granted that is possible. Maybe we can stick to one or two changes, and if we can't all agree on single changes, and get Marketa to approve we can drop the subject and leave the material as it is. Which might not be a bad general or periodic review process. Next revision of the syllabic word list, I agree with all of Sauls changes, but for this comment: >>na'-Tha'-thhja -> thhja = a aspirated dental fricative+y? > >Unfortunately, we don't have a dental fricative. I seem to remember >Marketa saying /na'tha'thaja/... It could be an older adopted word, which might get pronounced using either phonology (like scottish loch for example). a: -> ah an'-kharh -> an'-khar ahn'-woon -> ahn'-wun da'-Nii-khirch -> da'-ni-khirch droy -> droi farr -> fahr fort'-eh -> fort'-e imroy -> imroi Ka'-ath-y-ra -> Ka'-ath-ai*-ra kae'-k'-ak-ka-yam -> kae'-k'-ak-ka-jam kahr-y-tan -> kahr-i-tan Kh'-ask-peth-e-ya'-th -> Kh'-ask-peth-e-ja'-th Kh'-ask-ey-ra-lath-a -> Kh'-ask-ei-ra-lath-a Kh'-spark-ey-ra-lath-a -> Kh'-spark-ei-ra-lath-a krey-la -> krei-la kroy-kah -> kroi-kah k'-tveh-i -> k'-tve-i or k'-tve-hi? le'-mat-ya -> le'-mat-ja ma-toy -> ma-toi na'-Tha'-thhja -> na'tha'thaja ni-droy -> ni-droi say-a -> saj-a shi-ka'-ree -> shi-ka'-ri shroy -> shroi tal'-shay-a -> tal'-sha-ja t'-hy'-la -> t'-hai*'-la to-tsu'-k'-hy -> to-tsu'-k'-hai* tow -> tau tr'-ai-yar -> tr'-ai-jar ur-sev-eh -> ur-sev-e va'-ne: -> va'-ne vi-proy -> vi-proi >>Several times I ran accross a set of consonants which involved /r/ >>either in the form /CrC/ or /rCh/. I propose that we leave that as >>a proper spelling and that by default the r is pronounced as /*r/ >>in both cases (where * represents the neutral voiceless vowel). > >R can be pronounced in such a way that it is of the same family as >English W and Y: sometimes vowels, sometimes consonants. So the [*] >(similar to MSV /a/, in fact) probably isn't necessary even in a >narrow transcription. Well, I wasn't thinking of changing the transcription, I was thinking of pronunciation. >>Another thing we should resolve is whether or not to treat the /'/ as >>phonemic. I advocate the idea of /'/ as a phoneme. > >I like the idea of a /'/ phoneme, too. But that will mean we'll have >to be more careful about what happens to it as words are put together >from smaller parts -- especially if MSV is going to be more >agglutinative (sticking whole words together to derive others) than >inflective (sticking affixes to whole words to derive others). >Languages of the former type tend to resist letting the beginnings and >ends of words be mutated when joined with others. We should also try >to resist the temptation to insert it where it looks convenient... Well, let's get this iron out now, so I don't have to make changes to the program later on. What did you think of the allophones I suggested? Did you have some other ones you'd like to see, additionally or instead of? Rob Z.