Talk:Qatama grammar: Difference between revisions
(phonological chatter) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
That's all for now I think. --[[User:Tropylium|John Vertical]] 12:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC) | That's all for now I think. --[[User:Tropylium|John Vertical]] 12:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
:Wow, [[User:Tropylium|Trop]], you've truly been studying the structure of [[Qatama]]...I am impressed. | |||
::As to your questions; | |||
#Yes, I have held [[Qatama]] to be very personal since its inception. This doesn't necessarily mean that I couldn't at some point develop an internal history for it, but I haven't studied that well enough to speak authoritatively on it, hence, I have avoided the topic. | |||
#As for /tɬ/ and /ʒ/, I basically wrote up that phonological list based on Wikipedia and never really put that much thought into it. | |||
:[[Qatama]] is not much more than a collection of sounds that I find pleasing and euphonic. The grammar is loosely based on Mandarin and the primary script [[Moj]], is something that I based on initially Tibetan. The fact that I have a culture, map, dialects etc. is because the language led my mind to imagine such things. I hope this helps to explain [[Qatama]] a bit more. I am delighted to see your level of interest and please don't hesitate to ask any more questions that you may have. [[User:Qang|~Qang / Sano~]] |
Latest revision as of 04:33, 31 October 2008
Hi Sano,
I was wondering, I've seen you state before that you have not thought at all about the internal history of Qatama. Are you actually opposed to having any - after all, despite giving it speakers, dialects etc. you still seem to classify it as a "personalang" - or just not interested in working on the topic? I can discern various hints of linguistic history in it anyway, like the alternation in the pronunciation of <j>. I'm impress'd if you managed to create them in unintentionally. (Qatama's phonology is very cool in general anyway; you have a very uniq but still human "flavor" in there.)
One non-trivial change in particular looks obvious to me: most syllable-initial clusters are of the form stop + sonorant (with "stop" including nasals), but then there's /nʒ/. Also, you have /kj gj mj/, but no /ŋj/. I would take this to mean */ŋj/ → /nʒ/.
(This would probably have to precede the creation of /o/, or its change to something else after /ʒ/. I say "probably" because this could also be just a random hole, similar to the lack of /ŋə mju/. The lack of /tu du/ seems systematic tho, as well as the lack of initial /r/, or of lateral + vowel other than /a/ - but a statistical analysis would be needed to state any of this more securely.)
Oh, and any particular reason you keep classifying /tɬ/ as a fricative, but /ʒ/ as an affricate?
That's all for now I think. --John Vertical 12:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- As to your questions;
- Yes, I have held Qatama to be very personal since its inception. This doesn't necessarily mean that I couldn't at some point develop an internal history for it, but I haven't studied that well enough to speak authoritatively on it, hence, I have avoided the topic.
- As for /tɬ/ and /ʒ/, I basically wrote up that phonological list based on Wikipedia and never really put that much thought into it.
- Qatama is not much more than a collection of sounds that I find pleasing and euphonic. The grammar is loosely based on Mandarin and the primary script Moj, is something that I based on initially Tibetan. The fact that I have a culture, map, dialects etc. is because the language led my mind to imagine such things. I hope this helps to explain Qatama a bit more. I am delighted to see your level of interest and please don't hesitate to ask any more questions that you may have. ~Qang / Sano~