It is my artlang, spoken on an archipelago in the mid-Atlantic,=20
somewhat south of the Azores and northwest of Madeira. The=20
liturgical language has a number of _very_ exotic sounds, partly
to indicate that it is not the normal language of the street (these
sounds include several velaric egressive sounds, ie reverse clicks;
one or two apicovelars; nareal fricatives; and a few others).=20
> >> OTHERS
> >> (voiceless) "h"; raspy and unraspy, and voiced and unvoiced velar
> >> (that's 4 sounds);
> >The raspy/nonraspy distinction would be challenging to notate.
> Not really=97see below.
> >>"extreme retroflex" voiceless and voiced fricatives (that's
> >> 2); English stlye s, z, voiced th, unvoiced th; and two others whose
> >> identification I am very unsure of=97I can pronounce one of them=97I=
> >> voiced and unvoiced "lateral fricatives", thoguh I'm not sure tha
> >Seems something was lost here(?). I have found laterals (fricative or
> >are very easy to produce both ingressively & egressively. The sibilant=
> >/s, z/
> >are more difficult, as they sound quite different when pronounced
> >unlike most other fricatives (due to the obstruction of the teeth,
> >tongue shape,
> You're right, the s and z do sound very different, but that's what they=
> And I'm sure that the other 2 letters are not laterals=97I never should=
> called then that in the first place. I guess they're kind of like the =
s and z
> except that
> more of
Are your 'laterals' perhaps the ingressive versions of /sh, zh/ sounds?
These might sound rather lateral ingressively.
> >> bove down (not on computer!) as n, m, r, x, g, h, q, s, z,
> >> t, d, and l with various diacritical marks stuck on them.
> >I would be interested to know what system of diacritics you have tried
> >for these.
> With m, n and r, I used them plain, and with a tilde, circumflex, and a=
> upside-down circumflex (wedge? I always forget their names) to represen=
t the 8
> nasals and 4 r's, with the plain version of each of them sounding the s=
> in English. H, s, and z are the same. I used an l for what I thought =
> voiceless lateral, and a slashed l for its voiced version. T and d rep=
> the voiceless and voiced dental fricatives (though actually, in some di=
> they are the same sounds as in English, alveolar plosives). Then there=
's a q
> for the "apicovelar" voiceless fricative and a q with a tilde for it's =
> counterpart. And finally, x represents the velar voiceless fricative (=
> raspy) and g the voiced velar fricative (not raspy), while a tilde over=
> of them indicates raspiness.
I like this solution - it would work fine in writing, & is doable
on computer (with a bit of work), altho' most formats wouldn't support
these characters...which is a big pain.
> >They could be represented using either X-Sampa or another ASCII-IPA
> I'm not familiar with either of those.
Two variations on adapting the International Phonetic Alphabet for use
on the net, generally by a series of conventions to represent the
diacritics & letters of the IPA using standard ASCII characters.
I don't have a reference handy, but several people have links to
one or more of these on their websites.
> >[snip vowel descriptions]
> >This does represent a bit of a problem - certainly, if the tones were
> >regarded as
> >thirteen steps within a speaker-relative octave (or perhaps an octave
> >and a half?)
> >then they could be equated to musical notes.
> Well, I should have been clearer about that=97there are six levels, or =
> and the rest are different combinations of them. But 1-13 still works =
With 6 levels, and combinations thereof, it might be possible to=20
indicate these using simple diacritics (again, not an entirely
satisfactory solution...) Tone could be placed above the vowel,
length below the vowel...
> > Hmm - an ingressively sung
> >language -
> >now that _is_ a wild idea! You could notate it with a three tier syste=
> >phonemic string, a scalar tier to denote tone, and a third tier to
> >denote the length
> >perhaps using musical notation or numbers to indicate duration.
> >[Length] 3 2 7
> >[Tone] 3 5 11
> >[Phone] ho xan r=E4q
> >Admittedly this is rather clumsy, but would get the idea across.
> Right and right.
> >Or perhaps notate the tone as a numerical index either before or after
> >the given
> ne does not change):
> >3ho5xan 11r=E4q ~ ho3xan5 r=E4q11
> >Although I admit, I am not sure how to denote length - reduplication o=
> >would create some monstrosities:
> >hooo3xaan5 r=E4=E4=E4=E4=E4=E4=E4q11
> Yes, I've tried that, and it gets even worse:
> which means: I might go today.
> In the new alphabet that word is 9 letters
> >If I come up with any other ideas, I will forward them to you.
> >Bfool Wxouzwx
> Thank you. (what is Bfool Wxouzwx? I know it's not your name)
It's the Livagian spelling for Paul Roser. I'm still working on
how to spell it in Tsxaah (my own artlang).
>> Well I'd love to put all my languages on the web, but I can't deal with
>> and I'm having other kinds of problems with wysiwyg [sp?] programs. One
>> crashes when I'm using it and with the other, my modem shuts off before I
>> finish downloading it. I may just have to get Adobe Pagemill soon.
>Why can't you deal with HTML? Is it because of AOL's weird
Well, all right. It's that I *can't* deal with HTML so much as I don't *want*
to deal with it. I hate it like I hate Latin and Windows (and DOS [and Bill
Nareal peratains to the nares, ie. the nostrils - a nareal fricative
is one that involves friction there, especially associated with a
voiceless nasal (but may co-occur with other sounds).
| \ O) Human speech is like a cracked kettle on which we )
_|__/ | tap crude rhythms for bears to dance to, while we |
/ |eter | long to make music that will melt the stars. |
| | | - Gustave Flaubert, "Madame Bovary" |
>> > P.S.-I tried to look "nareal" up, but it wasn't in the dictionary.
>> Nareal peratains to the nares, ie. the nostrils - a nareal fricative
>> is one that involves friction there, especially associated with a
>> voiceless nasal (but may co-occur with other sounds).
> Uh...is this even humanly possible? I mean, I understand
>nasalized fricatives, but actually making fricatives with the nostrils!?
>My nose isn't that versatile.
I'm trying to do it now. I think I can kinda get it........
I think it's easier to do without any other sounds at the same time, with the
mouth closed, and voiced, so maybe I don't get it.
Just blow hard. The amount of airstream turbulence increases not only
with narrowing of the aperture but also with increase in air flow.
It's all to do with some elementary principle of aerodynamics or
Anyway, if you can hear the air coming out your nose when you
breathe, or try to dislodge a bit of snot, or whatever, then you can
hear yourself doing a nareal fricative.
For me at least, a [m] with nareal frication (a) signifies (simulated)
orgastic pleasure, and (b) tickles.
--co`o, mi`e la`o and
Really guys! A _voiceless_ nareal fricative isn't that difficult.
Basically a sneeze!
BTW: I can even make a quadrulabial click! (I need a bit of help from my
wife though.) One of the funniest uses of Latinate phonetic terminology is
the fact that you can use it to describe all manner of non-linguistic
noises made in the vocal tract, and some made elsewhere. It didn't take
too many bottles at the linguistic institute students' party for some
freshman to remark that tremulants can be produced at the other end of the
Please feel free to insult me, Da. (But not my sovereign, Her Majesty
I believe that during the production of [m] air flows out of the nose.
You can verify this by timing how long a [m] you can do normally and
then with your nostrils pinched shut.
Exactly. Farting may be a sound but it smells bad. We could also have a
language with sounds that including different methods of spitting, but it's
messy. We could have a language (as pkroser does) that includes (unless your
nose happens to be remarkably empty at the moment) flinging snot across the
room, but that's messy too. The line should be drawn somewhere, I believe,
preferrably at the point where making the sound also forces some type of
disliked substance, whether it be liquid, solid, or gas, to be ejected from
the body (unless, of course, the language was not designed to be spoken by
humans, but some alien creatures to whom the objectional materials coming out
of the body thing would not apply). In addition, all three of the sounds
mentioned above could be at times impossible or difficult to make, depending
on the abundance or lack of the substance in question.